Chin up Steinmeier

It really is an exciting time to be in Germany as everyone is talking about the election and getting ready to vote. A surprisingly dull campaign has hardly lit the world alight, but the last polls taken show that the gap has closed with the CDU/CSU hitting 33% and their desired coalition partner the FDP polling at 14%. This lacks the majority necessary for these two to govern and so it looks increasingly likely that Germany will retain the Grand Coalition that has governed for the last 4 years.

But what about the SPD I hear you ask. Well it's a good question as the same polling data pits them at 25% and their favoured coalition partner, the Greens, at 10%. That's 12% less than the centre right coalition and a loss of 13% from the last election. So what's happened to the party for such dire polling numbers to come out? Why has Walter Steinmeier (German SPD candidate) failed so miserably?

It is unfair to blame Steinmeier for the changed electoral landscape, and I don't think there is any SPD politician that could have won against these odds. The first thing to say is that both of the main parties have been squeezed at this election as voters have turned increasingly to smaller parties. This is not a new thing in Germany for the small parties to take a lot of votes and seats because that is what their proportional representation system is designed to do, but it has rarely been on this scale. If polling data is correct the total vote for the two main parties compared to last election will have fallen from 79.2% of the vote, to roughly 58 % - a drop in support of a whopping 21.2% in just 4 years!!! Reasons for this could include the Grand Coalition or the salience of issues for German voters, but either way this is a hard task for any leader to try and battle against.

Secondly Steinmeier has had to deal with the giant shadows of the two last Chancellors of Germany. His former ally Gerhard Shroder was a massive figure in the party and it would have been difficult for any member for the SPD to try and take over the reins from this giant of German politics. Further Steinmeier has also spent the last 4 years working as number 2 to Angela Merkel and so will always be seen as the junior compared to her in regards to experience and gravitas.

Steinmeier has also faced an impossible electoral landscape as his party has been squeezed from all directions. The coalition with the CDU/CSU has meant that his party cannot attack the record of the last 4 years, while they have also been painted by Merkel as being a hindrance on her ability to run the country properly. This is unfair but leaves the SPD outmanoeuvred politically because now they are forced to try and convince the voters why they would be a good coalition partner for the CDU/CSU when they really should be setting out their own agenda for the Chancellor job. The SPD have also been hit from the other side as well because the rise in support for the Left party has meant that they are losing support and members rapidly, yet to try and respond to the demands of the more leftist members of their own party would be disastrous for their image of being the right partner for the CDU/CSU. Schoders Agenda 2010 really alienated those on the left of the SPD and it would take a real effort to woo these supporters back.

Finally Steinmeier and the SPD started the campaign losing quite heavily and really needed an exciting campaign with divisive issues to really shake things up. However this has been one of the dullest campaigns in recent time as voters seem to want to keep the status quo in the time of economic troubles, and so Steinmeier has been unable to gain any momentum.

Therefore I don't think its fair to blame Steinmeier for the massive loss in support that is being predicted by latest polls. Both candidates should be congratulated on fighting strong campaigns, but only time will tell whether Merkel has won enough votes to break away from the SPD. Steinmeier on the other hand will be hoping to land a seat as the number 2 in a Merkel led coalition Government which is long way away from only 7 years ago when the SPD were the biggest party and setting the agenda. But that's politics for you and I predict there will be much more to come tonight!

Solution to the EU's problems? Maybe

I believe that the case for having the EU is clear, however I agree with many critics in their assessment that the EU is flawed in its processes. Simon Hix argues (and I agree) that what the EU needs is a dose of competitive politics to give it legitimacy and so actively engage public opinion. He suggests several ways in which to do this and in this blog I will discuss some of them.

Firstly the nature of the EU has fundamentally changed since the 1980s and it is about time that people realise this. At first the EU was creating legislation where previously there was none and so compromises were easy to reach between left and right. Now things have changed as the debate has moved to reforming these proposals to either move them more to the left (increasing regulation and social provision) or to the right (decreasing regulation). These decisions produce policy winners and losers, yet there is no real political debate over the outcomes, so when people are affected negatively by EU policies they just blame the EU in total rather than blaming the protagonists for passing this legislation . What is needed to counter this feeling is a proper debate at the heart of the EU so that the reform process actually has a mandate to implement the changes that everyone agrees is necessary.

The point that would logically come next from this is that therefore a treaty is needed to enforce these changes. However in actual fact changes to the rules and regulations of the major EU institutions would be enough to encourage limited competitive politics. In institutions around the world Constitutions set the parameters of what can and cannot be done, but the rules and regulations of the institutions themselves actually provide for how things will be done in practice. Rule changes in the Council of Ministers, European Commission and European Parliament will provide enough competition and debate.

1. Council of Ministers: By making the CoM more transparent it will take away from National Governments the ability to hide behind unanimity decisions as a way of not taking positions. Opening up more meetings to the public and releasing all minutes of meetings (except for sensitive national security issues) will force National Governments to take more political decisions and so require them to form coalitions to push their interests.

2. European Commission: as shown by the low media attention given to the re-election of President Barrosso, the most powerful position in the EU seems to matter very little to the public. What is need is an opening up of the debate to make it matter and so give the EU human faces rather than just being a conglomerate that is blamed for everything. To do this candidates for the Commission President should be announced before EP elections and then Heads of States and political groupings should announce which candidate they are backing. This changes the nature of the election as it now becomes a matter of different candidates representing different visions for Europe. Along with this the candidates should also hold a live public debate broadcasted on National networks to show the public the differences between the candidates. These changes would make the election of Commission President matter and so help to foster the creation of cross-institutional alliances between likeminded groupings.

3. European Parliament: The changes to the way the Commission President is elected will make EP elections matter more, but there still needs to be more at stake. Currently the distribution of rapporteurs and Committee heads is on a proportional basis, but by basing this more on pluralistic election results it will make more up for grabs for the winners. On top of this changing the length of term of the EP President will also help continuity and so encourage a single agenda, while stopping the current practice of the two main parties sharing the position over a term.

By making more st stake in each of the institutions, these changes would encourage cross institutional coalitions which would therefore help to create obvious policy divisions in the EU and so remove this idea that the EU is to blame for everything. Further this would interest the media who could now see the 'Brussels soap opera' where decisions actually matter, and so gain publicity. Political divisions also help to encourage innovation as both sides attempt to capture public opinion. All of these are beneficial to the EU and so can help to rid ourselves of the public perception of a 'Democratic Deficit' while also allowing us to move past our policy gridlock.

Some people argue that the EU should remain just a regulatory body and that by dabbling in redistributive affairs it is distracting from its primary aim of efficiency. However this fails to see that even pareto-efficient policies have redistributive effects (e.g. single market favours some groups and hurts others) and so policy changes need legitimacy or they will have no mandate for this change.

What is clear at the moment is that changes are happening in the EU, especially in the European Parliament where increasingly trans-national political groupings are voting on issues with likeminded groups rather than on a National perspective. What needs to happen is for these changes to be shown so that people can see that a debate is occurring in Europe over policy. At the moment winners and losers are produced, and the losers cannot accept that they have lost out because there has been no political dialogue. If the process is contested then losers in some policy areas can see that they have the ability to win in future scenarios, and so be encouraged to organise cross-institutional coalitions to have the biggest chance of their views suceeding. When this happens then we will have a proper organisation that has the ability to represent its citizens. At the moment public opinion has swung against the EU and what is need is more than a PR campaign. We need to take back the initiative and properly open up our institutions and show the public the many benefits that the EU has to offer.

Case for the EU

Well my time in Germany is nearly up, just two weeks until I'm back in good old England. This leaves me with a little more free time than I would usually have and so I've decided to write a couple of blogs. My reading recently has led me to the European Union and the arguments surrounding its existence and viability. I was shocked at how little media Jose Manuel Barrosso's re-election as President of the Commission got as this is effectively the most powerful position within the EU with its agenda setting powers. Obviously something needs to be done about the lack of interest in the EU and over the course of my next few blogs I will be explaining my thoughts on what would work.

Firstly however just to set the scene nicely it's probably a good idea to look at the case itself for actually having the EU. Clearly both sides in the debate have points but the economic arguments of having it are far too convincing. While on a more nationalistic sense with Britain, it is better to be part of a process that we can change rather than running away, hiding under the blanket and hoping that EU legislation won't affect us.

So why do we need the EU? Why is it not better for all nations just to trade and negotiate on the International stage? Why do we have all of these rules and bureaucracy?

The main argument in favour of the EU is the fact that larger states are in fact better. If you look across the world who is the most successful country economically? It is the USA. This is because across the US there is a massive amount of diversity in the economy which allows greater specialisation and economies of scale. Only 20% of the USA's GDP is traded in the global economy - the rest is traded domestically. The USA can effectively produce its own goods using its own raw materials, and then sell it domestically to the huge US market. The EU is the same and just like the USA only 20% of the EU's GDP is traded globally. Even Britain trades 56% of the time with other EU countries! By forming a large trading bloc, the EU can compete with Asia and the USA in a way that would have been impossible for smaller states. It is true to say that some small states have been successful like Singapore and Hong Kong, but these have been at the cost of completely integrating with the global economy thereby losing their sovereignty over macro and micro economics. Therefore a large argument in favour of the EU is based around the idea that 'bigger is better'. By forming a large bloc it lowers the cost of public goods, provides a broader range of services, increases productivity and increases employment, growth and wealth. Relatively Europe is in decline compared to the rest of the world and without the EU there is no way that countries like France, Germany and Britain could maintain the high standards of living that they are accustomed too.

Another strong argument is that the EU helps to correct market failures that would normally cause benefits in some countries at the expense of others. Examples are pollution - acid rain, etc - unfair competition and worker exploitation. The EU legislates on these issues in a way that no international agreement could ever do, and so helps to deal with issues that are important to nations but is impossible to deal with alone. Also the EU haslegislated on issues like equality (it is now a crime across ALL EU states to discriminate on the basis of sexuality, race, etc,) maternity and paternity leave, and also given rights to temporary workers. Without these rulings it would be fair to say that some countries and nationalities in Europe would suffer unfairly, and I believe that this is a key point in why the EU is so beneficial.

The EU and the single market are also very advantageous in a different economic way as, for example, in just the first 10 years of the single market it created 2.5 million jobs and gave €5,700 to every household. These are only Commission estimates, but it would be foolish to claim that the single market and the EU have not brought real economic benefits. Also I think it is quite interesting to note that the entire 'mammoth beaurocracy' of the EU in relative terms is probably the same size of one that would administer a medium sized European city. Talk of Brussels sucking in most of the EU budget is far off, and in actual fact the EU is much more efficient than any National Government would admit (why you ask? because than people might ask how the EU is able to run with such small costs and then maybe they might want cuts in Government beaurocracy).

A lot of people also take for granted the benefits of the EU that they might experience throughout the year. For example it is due to the EU that it is so easy to go on holiday through Europe because of the open market and freedom to travel legislation. Also any British citizen if they wanted can just pack up and move off to Spain. These are because of the EU, and people should be reminded of that!

Some people argue that if a country wanted they could just up and leave the EU and so avoid all the social legislation, but get a partial membership and so keep membership of the single market. Alternatively some argue that we in Britain should just leave completely the EU. These claims seem foolish when put into perspective as the above arguments show that the benefits of the EU are vast and that leaving would be bad for the economy. If Britain were to leave it would be a huge gamble that our economy would be able to make the shift, and even if it did why would we want to do this when we get a pretty good deal from the EU? Why should we fight to get back our sovereignty from the EU only to hand it over to the global economy? Also arguments about partial membership seem strange because effectively they are saying that we will still be subject to all EU legislation in the economic fields, yet we won't have a voice in any of the drafting process. To assume that legislation from 26 of our closest neighbours wont effect us is crazy! The EU is now an agenda setter in the world that other nations are forced to follow, for example in the chemical industry the EU is one of the largest traders and creators. Therefore when other countries deal with the EU in the field of chemicals they are forced to adhere to EU standards (e.g. REACH). As I said earlier I would rather be a part of this process and actually have some kind of influence on the process, rather than run away and hide and pretend that the EU won't affect us.

Therefore these are my arguments as to why the EU is needed so much, and also why we as Britain should remain a part of it. I haven't even had space to mention how the EU has dealt with hunger and war, while creating a culture of consensus that my grandparents would have thought impossible. The EU is here and we need it. To think otherwise I think is strange and I will be interested to read what other people's opinions are on the matter. What is needed now is a proper plan to bring EU citizens into the process (but I will leave this for the next blog before I start discussing mor Hix!).

As for now I'm going to return to the world of au pairing, I think it's going to be a long day tomorrow...

Summer in Germany

During my studies at University and my time at the European Parliament, I have decided to look into doing a Masters in European Politics specialising in Germany. The first problem with this is that I don't speak German very well. So in an effort to change this I have taken a job as an Au Pair in Germany, and what a great decision it appears to have been!

I am staying just outside of Essen in Mulheim an der Ruhr and the family I am staying with are great. They have three boys (aged 5, 7 and 11) who keep me busy all day, but the family seem determined to show me every part of the local area. Essen has been granted European Capital of Culture 2010 (which it has granted to the whole region) and so there is plenty of things going on here. In just a week I have been to the Gasometer (a former Gas storage facility which has been converted into an exhibition) where there is an exhibition on space, to Zollverein which is a former coal mine converted into a museum with art galleries, a castle just outside of Essen, chatted EU politics with extreme right German farmers, Essen Cathedral, and lots more besides!

I am struggling a little bit with my German at the moment, but my lessons start on Tuesday which will move the process on a lot. As for now I know the basics like Bier(beer), essen(eat) and schlaffen(sleep). I'm sorted!

Who's right about the Audit commission - Thanet Tories or Kent Tories?

There has been much confusion between the local Tories over the credibility of the Audit Commission. The Audit Commission in its recent review of Kent County Council's dealings with Icelandic banks slated them as they and 6 other local authorities had "negligently deposited money after credit ratings for Icelandic banks were downgraded below acceptable levels". The report itself can be found here, but while this in itself is quite a scathing attack, I am more interested in the response of KCC Tories and in particular that of Peter Gilroy and Paul Carter. They described this report by the Audit Commission in a letter to them as "not only breathtakingly naive, but through a combination of unprofessionalism and inaccuracy, has the potential to be extremely damaging". They go on to attack the Audit Commission's own record with Icelandic banks, and also claim that the report was compiled with "the flimsiest of evidence, lacking in research, thorough analysis and empirical data".

A pretty strong response from the KCC Tories to the Audit Commission. Yet just the week before Thanet District Council Tories were praising the report of the Audit Commission for naming TDC in the top 50 for improvements in its service in the country. Council Leader Sandy Ezekiel described these awards as "the Oscars of Local Government" and "shows just how far Thanet has come in improving the services it offers". Quite a difference in opinion over the credibility of the Audit Commission. So who is right? Paul Carter and Peter Gilroy, or Sandy Ezekiel and Martin Wise?

At least the Labour party has a united message over the Audit Commission, and in a letter from the Leader of the Opposition Mike Eddy to the Audit Commission stated that he was "saddened and dismayed by the tone of the letter which Mr Gilroy and Mr Carter sent in response to this report". He went on to say that he was worried about the future of the relationship between KCC and the Audit Commission and stated that he hoped that the Labour group could help to "build positively on the errors of the past and ensure that in future public resources are used in the best interests of the people of Kent". A view enhanced by the fact that only three weeks previously Peter Gilroy and Paul Carter had showered praise on the Audit Commission after it awarded KCC four stars in the CPA for the seventh year running (yet another example of hypocrisy within the Tory ranks).

So can anyone from the Tory party reaffirm their thoughts on the Audit Commission? Or are we consistently going to have a process of the Tories praising them when they praise the Tories, and criticising them when they criticise the Tories? This is not a constructive relationship and I just hope that we can get some answers.

National Coal Mining Museum

I think I may have just had one of the best weekends of my life. It started because I somehow managed to leave my passport in York, and as I am going on holiday to Egypt in a week this was a pretty stupid thing to do. So after doing some leafleting on Saturday morning I started the long drive up to York with a few friends. We had a good time in York, but it is the journey home that I want to talk about because we ended up going to National Coal Mining Museum and it was absolutely unbelievable. I'm currently writing my dissertation on the 1984-5 miners strike and this was a great opportunity to experience a bit of their life. This place has everything from a museum, a railway station and it even has an underground tour which is amazing, but best of all... IT'S FREE which is a very big thing for a University student!!!

Going down into the pits really starts you thinking because suddenly everything that you've heard and read makes more sense. There is a reason why miners are so closely knit and it is because they all relied on each other for safety every single day. When we went down we weren't allowed to take any phones, cameras or anything with a battery because there could be gases down there that could explode if there was spark from something. All it would take once down in the mines is for one man to make a mistake and the lives of hundreds would be in jeopardy. These men had to do dirty and dangerous jobs hundreds of metres below the surface for little pay and so it's no wonder that they stood together over issues. I'm not going to get into the arguments over who was to blame during the miners dispute and closings until I actually get a chance to do more reading on the subject, but I think that if you get the chance to go to this museum it is well worth it. It is situated just off junction 40 of the M1 near Wakefield, and it has things for the whole family (including a miners kids play park that I was apparently 'too big' to go on (bastards)).

So that was about my weekend and I would be interested to hear from anyone via comments or email whether they have any interesting stories from the mines, or if they have been to the National Coal Mining Museum. I may have had a good weekend, but I currently have to deal with my mum who is still very cross that I left my passport in York. Perhaps I should get back down that mine again while she cools off...

Northern Ireland

Is anyone else really worried for the fate of Northern Ireland if the Conservatives get into power? The recent incidents where lives have been lost in Northern Ireland has made me wonder what the future has in store for this dispute stricken area. As we all know the power sharing peace process in Northern Ireland is walking a tight rope whereby even the slightest incident could cause the whole process to come tumbling down.

So what happens when a Conservative Government comes into power which is officially in alliance with the Ulster Unionist party? How can there be negotiations between the two sides when it is obvious that the British Government supports one side. Tony Blair was able to help to diffuse this situation because he didn't take sides and simply got the two sides together to try reach an agreement. Surely Cameron would not be able to take this stance if his party relies on the Ulster Unionists for a majority in Parliament just like the Major years (and this is a very issue with the increasing possibility of a hung Parliament). I really do worry about the future for Northern Ireland because no-one wants this to return to the 80s when people in England feared for their lives because of the IRA. I stand by the Conservatives deciding to take a stance on the issue of Northern Ireland as that's politics, however to actually have your party allied to one of them is a step too far. Just when things are starting to reach a common ground over there I'm going to be worrying every time there is even the slightest disagreement. At least under Blair we knew he would do everything to try and sort it, but I fear a Conservative Government cannot make the same promise.

Saturday morning campaigning

Spending your Saturday mornings running up and down stairs delivering leaflets might not sound like the most glamorous thing to do, but doing it actually gives you an odd sense of satisfaction. Just from one mornings work you might be able to change the entire course of an election by connecting or informing just one voter who could provide the crucial winning vote in an election. Not only that, but it is also representative democracy in action as we are providing a channel for the representatives to inform the electorate of what is happening in the offices of power. If anyone has free time I would suggest doing something like this. It gets you up and about with fresh air, you get to meet new people, get some exercise and know that what you are doing is making a difference towards getting the message out. I am the king of being lazy on a Saturday morning, but having got up and actually done something today I feel great so now I can just relax for the rest of the day.


I also heard a really funny story this morning from one of the people I was with. He was at the Labour conference and decided that he needed to leave early so as to avoid the rush of people attempting to get away afterwards – a logical choice. One of the last speakers was Yvette Cooper who was Housing minister at the time and so he decided to leave after she had spoken so as not to seem rude to the next speaker. (I would have left before, but don’t tell her that). However his nominated seating was unlucky as he had been asigned the seat right in the corner at the front in the furthest seat away from the aisle. Seeing as the aisle was the one exit, the only way for him to get out was to make everyone along the row stand up. So after Yvette Cooper's speech which gets the applaud of the whole conference, our man steps up to go leave clapping politely as he goes, causing his entire row to do likewise and stand up. Next thing the entire conference has stood up giving a standing ovation to the Housing minister, all because of this guy wanting to leave early! I’m pretty sure that must have been one of the first times that a Housing minister has had a standing ovation at Conference, and it was commented on by the media and powers that be! I think if I ever get a chance to speak at any events I might just have several of my friends strategically sat about the place to engineer standing ovations. Cameron if you’re reading stay away it’s my strategy. We’ve already had enough of all your media tricks thank you very much!


So now after a morning of leafleting and cleaning I’m going to watch Wales snatch victory from the jaws of defeat and be named 6 Nations champions again. I also expect Spurs to beat Chelsea by 7 goals, and for Arsenal to lose by 5 goals to Newcastle. I can dream!!!

Band of Brothers

I've just finished watching the Band of Brothers series and it is possibly one of the most emotional and inspiring programs I have ever watched. The series focuses on the exploits of 'Easy Company', who are Paratroopers of the 101st airborne division, as they fight Hitler across Western Europe. Lots of well known actors take part in the series including the likes of David Schwimmer, Simon Pegg and Kirk Acevedo, and it has won several awards such as a Golden Globe and six Emmy awards.

The series charts ‘Easy Company’ all the way from the landings at D-day to the end of the war and the overthrow of Hitler. All of this is a true story and is based exactly on the accounts of the surviving members of ‘Easy Company’, and each episode starts off with a testimonial from the survivors about what actually happens. This adds a different dimension to the series and so makes the horrific situations of fighting war so much worst but so real. What this group of soldiers went through is unbelievable, and the fact that some were even able to survive to tell the tale is a miracle in itself. These were the men who were dropped behind enemy lines on D-day to help take out the German resistance on the beaches. These were the men who then parachuted into Holland completely unaided at first to try and liberate the country. These who bravely stood their ground in the Battle of the Bulge at Bastogne when all other soldiers had fallen back and so stopped the German advance from taking back the initiative in the war. They who liberated the Landsberg concentration camp from the brutal tyranny of the SS in the poignantly named episode ‘Why we fight’. And ever after all of this fighting and bloodshed where the company were completely decimated at times, they were still the first Allied troops up to Berchtesgarden to find the last of the SS troops who had been ordered to form a last stand there.

All of these events are wonderfully portrayed with the reunited Directing team of Tom Hanks and Steven Spielberg, and the only thing missing from this series is one or two recognisable characters as at times it becomes difficult to follow who each of the characters are due to deaths and changing story lines. Yet it makes up for this through having such amazing special effects, a strong story line and the link between reality and Hollywood. This is an absolute must see for everyone, not just history or military buffs. Once you see this you won’t ever think about World War 2 in the same way as Band of Brothers vividly shows the true nature of war and you can only hope t nothing on the scale of the World Wars will ever happen again.

Zimbabwe: Is the End in Sight?

For too long have the Zimbabwean people searched for true freedom for their country away from the probing fingers of a autocratic Government. Mugabe was supposed to be the man to lead them away from the opressive Smith regime of South Rhodesia. Mugabe was supposed to be the light to shine upon one of the darkest corners of the earth and bring equality and strength to Zimbabwe. Yet 29 years after Mugabe’s victory in the election of Febuary 1980, little has changed in terms of Government or style. White soldiers opressing the Black population has now turned into ZANU-PF soldiers opressing the Black population. The economic troubles of the 1970s caused by economic sanctions have now been replaced with an economic crisis based around failed land reform and Mugabe’s reputation (which has sunk far lower then Smith could ever have reached). This is the Zimbabwe of today where hyperinflation ravages the land and where its people are struck by diseases such as cholera and aids while the Government stands idly by claiming that this is all a slanderous lie by the west to take power back in Zimbabwe. How did things get to this? What has happened to a country that had so much hope? The answer is simple - Mugabe. This one man has taken the mantle of the bad man of Africa from the likes of Bokassa and Idi Amin, and one wonders where they keep finding these meglamaniacs who lack even the slightest degree of humanness.

From all of this hate and despair that grips Zimbabwe today is there any hope left? Elections have failed, negotiations have failed and power sharing agreements have failed. What are the options for Zimbabweans and the world to change this horrific situation? Military intervention to remove Mugabe will not happen, and if it did I don’t feel it would have a positive effect as we could just have another Iraq on our hands. Flouting international law and violating the sovereignty of another nation is not the right way to go, and this could just create another ZANU-PF martyr who could claim to be fighting the west and take back power. Similary by now negotiations have failed and unless Mugabe suddenly has an uncharacteristic change of heart then I don’t see any headway being made by Tsvangarai, and any Government formed will just be another one dominated by Mugabe. I have faith in the Zimbabwean people to fight off the terror of the Mugabe regime, but at a time when they are barely staying alive due to the onset of diseases, hyperinflation and lack of food, how is it possible for them to rise up? People are too scared to act lest they be taken away, while any sign of activity is ruthlessly countered by Mugabe’s police units.

Hope however remains which centres around Mugabe’s age and health. Mugabe will be 85 on Febuary 21st and he surely cannot last much longer which brings me to my main point. Mugabe is the symbol of not just terror, but also of the revolution away from white control which may seem strange to us but is evident with many black people. Once this image of fear and history is gone there is no way that ZANU-PF could continue in power with the way the country is running at the moment. This may seem like a ‘wait and see’ policy, yet it need not be as old age has been showing signs of catching up on him which creates a window of opportunity. Pressure from the United Nations and South Africa in particular will turn this opportunity into a reality. If ZANU-PF see Mugabe’s health declining then they will take steps to bring in a new leadership and this is where the break from them can happen. The people of Zimbabwe will see the opportunity for change in power, and so if ever there was the chance to change Zimbabwe for the better then this is the moment to give help to the Zimbabwean people and the Movement for Democratic Change. I for one applaud reports that President Obama is planning on making change in Zimbabwe one of his main international aims. With the right pressure we can avoid a costly war that would scar Zimbabwe for years, while also bringing the change that is necessary to take a country that is now the basketcase of Africa back to the breadbasket that it once was. Some many see this article as saying that there is no solution to Mugabe and that we should just wait, however I believe that change is just around the corner and that now is the time to put pressure on Mugabe as his health fails so as to present us with the opportunity to remove this brutal dictator once and for all.