Harriet of Peckhamshire and the Wrong Shoes

Davis Mukasa   |   January 28, 2014    5:12 PM ET

2014-01-28-OvalHarrietPic2.jpg

So the story kind of goes like this. There was once a young black boy who studied economics and politics, spun his way to become a spin doctor for a political party, joined a local media organisation bringing politics to the people, became a champion of the people, was voted in by the people, lived as a Peckham legend, later became Lord Mufasa of Peckhamshire with his very own wing in the esteemed Peckham Library where for decades children would study his feats during Black History Month.

Or so it should've been. That is, were it not for the immovable force that was Harriet Hurricane Harman. She'd apparently occupied the seat since she was six. A time when children could legally be bonded in holy matrimony. (I believe this is still common in upper-class circles but nobody notices because only the gentry read the marriage section of broadsheets so nobody cares. Just so you know.)

At the time in question, Harriet had been promoted to deputy leader of the Labour Party. A double whammy. This lady was not for turning let alone leaving her seat. She was in her pomp. For the meantime it seemed Black History Month would remain Martin Luther King, Nelson Mandela, drumming and famines. Much the poorer I thought. I sipped on my latte.

So I watched from the wings planning and plotting. I did everything to make myself electable. I drank in the local Wetherspoon's to support local drinking, used night buses instead of taxis - even the ones that went through Elephant and Castle (!), went to boring town council meetings where councillors would labour (no pun intended) through steering committees to form focus groups to debate a proposed six-million-pound modernisation programme Operation Change Front Page Font, acronym, acronym, acronym. In short, life was shit-balls.

That was until I hatched the plan of the century. I'd phone Harriet's press people and arrange to interview her for my Peckham Radio show. Perhaps our repartee could paint me as the natural man-in-waiting. The heir apparent. We'd walk around the town chatting to people, have the people ask us questions, I'd ask her questions, maybe one or two innocent ones like 'when are you leaving', 'isn't it time you moved to another seat' and so forth. We all knew that any rejection of this wonderful offer to spend a Friday afternoon canvassing opinion outside Peckham Library would amount to casual racism. The papers would've had a field day. These were the days when a paper could call you a RACIST in bold red, 400-point-size font, and apologise in font size 8 on page 28, 8 full months after the public had fully digested your racist ways.

This was it. Mama didn't raise no fool. Strike time. Operation: Peckham Tour.

Harriet and her PA turned up promptly that Friday afternoon. She could have been enjoying a sunny cocktail or two on the Westminster lawn; instead here she was. The famous Peckham Square.

But from the outset the scenario was bleak. There was bloody barely anybody around. We were literally chasing shadows. Even worse, nobody seemed to know who Harriet was. But worse still, when they realised who she was, they had no idea this was their MP. So they had no idea why we were approaching them. This was proving to be a disaster for us both. My plan was making us both look silly and desperate. Far from being the man-in-waiting, I was beginning to feel more like the lady-in-waiting, running around behind Harriet cajoling people to partake. How could I showcase my political gravitas if we couldn't get past disparate and prolonged episodes of 'guess the face'? Somebody needed to hear the soliloquies I'd been rehearsing for a week.

In the end we seized upon two young girls who almost threw their chips in the air when we pounced on them from both sides. I thrust the microphone to their unprepared faces. As you can see, they were really quite thrilled. And Harriet too was having the time of her life at this point. We got a few choice sound bites and decided to leave the square at that. Cut our losses.

I thought we'd quickly move to the next part of my fun-filled Tour de Peckham, a jaunt through the fish and fresh meat district of the lively Peckham market, a chance to meet the common man. The library had been one thing but this was going to be something quite different for our Harriet. Now this would be a great time for me to shine as I had a natural touch with the common person. I wanted to do the kind of piece John Simpson does in a bustling street market in a hitherto unknown part of a distant land.

Alas, Harriet's enthusiasm had taken a bashing. The Right Honourable Lady took a look up the frenzied high street then glanced for mercy at her PA, her eyes narrowing as though prompting the PA to come up with something quickly. She didn't. Harriet looked again, then finally back to my enthusiastic face and said: "Errr. I seem to have brought the wrong shoes."

I was crushed. I pondered for a second if it would be gentlemanly to offer to carry the Honourable Lady through the market on my back. I then immediately considered the visual implications and possible ramifications of a white MP riding a black man like a horse through an urban marketplace. Riots have been started for less. I had to accept that my fun-filled Tour de Peckham was dead. My fun itinerary would never see the light of day. Those Peckham market traders would never know how close they had come to seeing their hero. And Harriet Harman.

What had made Harriet change her mind I would never find out. I've since pondered what her special market shoes looked like, and whether her PA was ever sacked for forgetting them. Perhaps that sideways look had been to say: I told you we should've brought the market shoes Grommit.

Anyway, Peckham and Shoegate would soon have to wait. There was other politicking to be done at the time. Ken Livingstone was the only one NOT laughing as the cirque de Johnson rumbled into town driven by Australian fire-starter Lynton Crosby. And a certain young black senator was beginning to make waves in the labour unions of Chicago. I knew what I had to do. I packed my bags, got my papers and set off for the centre of progressive politics. Camberwell.

Sara C Nelson   |   January 28, 2014    3:01 PM ET

UPDATE Your Move, Obama: The Petition To Deport Justin Bieber Has Reached Its Target

A petition calling on President Barack Obama to deport Justin Bieber has been signed by thousands of American citizens.

Though live for just a few days, the application posted on the White House website has already reached more than half the 100,000 signatures it needs to secure an official response from the government.

It calls for the singer to be deported to his native Canada and for his Green Card to be revoked.

justin bieber mugshot

The Baby singer smiles for his mugshot

It was posted by ‘J.A’ in Detroit on 23 January and says:

“We the people of the United States feel that we are being wrongly represented in the world of pop culture. We would like to see the dangerous, reckless, destructive and drug abusing Justin Bieber deported and his green card revoked. He is not only threatening the safety of our people but he is also a terrible influence on our nation’s youth. We the people would like to remove Justin Bieber from our society.”

Bieber was arrested in Florida for driving under the influence last week.

Police in Miami Beach said they arrested Bieber smelling of alcohol after officers saw him drag-racing before dawn Thursday, with his yellow Lamborghini traveling at nearly twice the speed limit.

The unravelling of Justin Bieber

Solving the 'Big Brother Problem' That Affects Every One of Us

Salil Shetty   |   January 22, 2014   12:00 AM ET

The 'Big Brother Problem' has helped to kick off this year's discussions of the most pressing problems facing the world today as the World Economic Forum meeting gets under way in Davos, Switzerland.

This is an important recognition of the urgency of the issue. It is one that affects every single one of us and is an area of law that needs to be resolved.

Some of the most memorable headlines of 2013 involved personal privacy, data security and intelligence gathering issues from all corners of the globe - from the US to Brazil, from Australia to India.

But what has bothered me about the conversation to date is the way it has been framed by some defenders of mass surveillance programmes. We must choose, they say, between security or privacy, protection or liberties.

This is a simplistic way of looking at the issues and it has damaged our ability to identify sound public policies that strike a sensible balance between these concerns.

The question that should be asked is: is it right for the state to store, and share, information about our personal phone calls, emails and social media interactions... potentially indefinitely?

The answer, I hope, is one that no one can dispute. People have a right to privacy; governments should only be looking at our information if, and only if, they have probable cause to suspect wrongdoing.

Of course law enforcement agencies have an obligation to investigate potential crimes. But that duty is not a licence to conduct a fishing expedition. Law enforcement agencies should not let their investigations become the electronic equivalent of a trawling net that indiscriminately scoops up everything that passes, with the catch put on ice indefinitely.

The surveillance of metadata tracks every instance in which we email, speak to, or communicate with someone online. It is no different than having someone spying on your house and monitoring who comes in and who leaves, at all times of the day.

This is an unacceptable breach of privacy that cannot continue. We must find a way to square the privacy vs. security argument in a more practical way for the future.

A starting point would be significantly greater openness about the scope of what is being monitored and why. We cannot effectively assess the extent of the threat to our privacy and determine what additional safeguards are needed unless we know what governments are collecting and what uses they make of that information.

This need for additional safeguards is clearly demonstrated by the way GCHQ, the UK's surveillance headquarters, is operating. GCHQ evades legal scrutiny by outsourcing its surveillance operations to the USA, asking the National Security Agency (NSA) to do what it itself would never be able to do.

The NSA, in turn, has grown into one of the most terrifyingly powerful government bodies in the world. Since 9/11, it has essentially been given a blank cheque to expand its sphere of influence exponentially, without any fear of oversight or transparency.

It was welcome news on Friday to hear President Obama affirming the need to safeguard the privacy of people, both in the US and around the world. The President's acknowledgements are certainly a step in the right direction, after such a disappointing year of revelations about the extent of the US's intelligence gathering.

However, the truth of the matter is, the substance of the President's most recent proposals hardly revolutionises the issues.

The President will still retain the power to authorise surveillance activities without having to answer to judicial review and the future of the country's bulk collection of metadata remains unclear.

Furthermore, despite the President's signal that he is prepared to recognise the privacy rights of those of us who live outside the USA, his policy falls short on specifics.

Most of the President's proposals will now need to be voted on by Congress before they can take effect. Even before the President spoke, bills had been proposed by Senators Baldwin and Leahy. But these legislative fixes themselves were limited in scope as they did not apply to people living outside of the country.

There is no doubt that striking the right balance between privacy and security requires careful, thoughtful analysis. Policy makers need to take a long, hard look at the choices they've made over the years that have created a world of Big Brother states.

Looking to the future, my hope is that our governments will not use rhetoric about security as any further justification for sacrificing a fundamental human right: the right to privacy.

Salil Shetty is Secretary General of Amnesty International. He is a panellist on 'The Big Brother Problem' at the 2014 World Economic Forum Annual Meeting in Davos

Guantánamo: Where There Are No Shades of Grey

Neil Durkin   |   January 20, 2014    6:05 PM ET

One of the books that detainees at Guantánamo Bay are reportedly banned from reading is 50 Shades of Grey, the international bestseller from the US writer EL James. Could it be that the US military authorities have decided that James' erotic thriller is actually pornographic (so-called "mummy porn") and therefore unsuitable for the camp's 155 detainees? Er, I'd almost rather not know about the reasoning here ... but then again, I actually would. Because these kinds of micro-decisions are perhaps revealing of the larger mindset at Guantánamo.

For example, officials at Guantánamo regularly talk of "compliant" and "non-compliant" detainees at the camp, as if there's some kind of virtue in a detainee acquiescing in their unlawful captivity for years on end. "Compliant" detainees - held in Guantánamo's Camp Six - are given "privileges" such as access to communal facilities and to newspapers, videos and books (though not 50 Shades of Grey). "Non-compliant" detainees are put into the camp's infamous orange jumpsuits - "as a visual reminder" to the guards of their non-compliance - and held in maximum-security solitary confinement. To comply, or not to comply, this is the question that the Guantánamo authorities apparently want to make the big question for the detainees.

Meanwhile, the Gitmo authorities go on making decisions over the lives of the detainees. If a detainee refuses food - as part of a hunger strike or for some other reason - the camp's medical staff decide whether to feed that detainee (they are "enterally" fed as part of what the camp authorities call a "common medical procedure"). The detainees may not agree with this decision or the language around it, and recognised international medico-ethical standards forbid the force-feeding of detainees who can make an informed decision over refusing nutrition, but ... well, the detainee is strapped down and the nasal feeding tube is forced up the nose and down into the stomach anyway. Similarly, a detainee may be desperate to talk to a journalist on one of the (relatively) common media tours of Guantánamo, but the camp authorities prevent this insisting that such contacts with journalists "violate their privacy" (apparently round-the-clock monitoring and lengthy body searches ahead of meetings with lawyers don't interfere with a detainee's privacy).

So, having set the camp's framework question (compliance or non-compliance), decided when a detainee should be fed (or force-fed), and judged the suitability of reading materials and when a detainee's privacy is being invaded or otherwise, the US authorities have also taken care of all legal matters as well. Having designated the detainees "enemy combatants" in a supposed open-ended "global war" with al-Qa'ida, the US authorities have decided that "military commissions" at Guantánamo should be the preferred trial system, not courts on the US mainland. And, if it's been determined that there's not enough evidence for these trials (for example, if there's an over-reliance on evidence produced by torture) then the detainee will either be held indefinitely (apparently until they die), held until they're eventually transferred out (subject to a range of apparently secret US "security" conditions), or - in a recent twist - possibly re-assessed and then lined up for a long-overdue plane flight out of Guantánamo if a review panel (comprising federal officials sitting in Washington) decides that this should happen.

It's abundantly clear, then, that Guantánamo is all about control. Of liberty, food, reading matter, the law, the media, and language. Above all, of language. During an interview with the BBC's Rutila Shah in November, the current deputy commander of Guantánamo - the entirely self-controlled Brigadier General Marion Garcia - is at pains to reframe the conversation throughout. She won't accept phrases like force-feeding ("you're using interesting terminology") and when the BBC's questions become too insistent Garcia pulls down the shutters ("that's where we're gonna end it"). Meanwhile, during the same programme a guard speaks of the mental stress to her fellow guards of "being in enemy contact", as if the detainees were somehow armed protagonists in a battle zone and not men behind bars who have mostly yet to be charged, or tried, or of course found guilty of a single crime.

Five years after the newly-elected President Obama promised to close Guantánamo within a year, it still holds 155 detainees. Of these 76 have been cleared for transfer, but remain there nonetheless, including the former south London resident Shaker Aamer. By all accounts Aamer is in very bad shape after almost 12 gruelling years of Guantánamo captivity - including numerous reported beatings, long spells in solitary ("single-cell" housing) and protracted hunger strikes ("enteral feeding" sessions).

I don't know which books - if any - Aamer has read at Guantánamo , yet I somehow don't imagine that 50 Shades of Grey would have been top of his "to read" list even if it wasn't banned ("screened") by the camp authorities. On reflection it's probably not the racy goings on between Ana and Christian that makes 50 Shades apparently unsuitable for Gitmo's caged would-be readers, but its provocative title. At Guantánamo there are no shades of grey, just the orange (naturally) of the non-compliant detainees' jumpsuits and the black and white of US military practice. They are right and the rest of the world is wrong. We should stop quibbling and just submit to this world view ...

  |   January 17, 2014   11:04 AM ET

America's First Lady turns 50 on January 18th - so what better way to celebrate than to look back at some of her greatest photos?

And by 'greatest', we do of course mean 'funniest' (this is the Comedy section, after all). Whether it's giving a speech, reading a book for children, getting America fit or just pulling a wry face, Michelle Obama is never not animated-slash-delightful.

Happy birthday, your royal highness! (That's what they call you over there, right?)


Paul Vale   |   January 16, 2014   11:18 PM ET

Since becoming governor of the American state of New Jersey in late 2009, Chris Christie, a straight-talking former attorney from the city of Newark, had built a reputation as a pragmatic politician.

Christie has governed the state, which sits just across the river from New York City, as a moderate Republican with a strong focus on eschewing the national squabbles of Washington in favour of delivering balanced budgets and improving education.

However, the notion that Christie could transcend party politics -- a perception cemented in late 2012 when he and U.S. President Barack Obama were pictured arm-in-arm touring the stricken Jersey Shore after Hurricane Sandy -- recently came crashing down.

Newly released emails revealed that in August, a top Christie aide ordered the closure of two entrance lanes to the George Washington Bridge, the main traffic artery connecting the New Jersey borough of Fort Lee to New York City, because Fort Lee's Democratic mayor didn't endorse Christie's reelection bid.

An email from Christie's deputy chief of staff read, "Time for some traffic problems in Fort Lee." One of Christie's top aides who worked at the agency that runs the bridge, replied, "Got it."

The revelation led to the immediate dismissal of the deputy chief of staff, while providing the American political lexicon with a new shorthand for an act of revenge -- "Bridgegate." Christie has denied all knowledge of the affair and said he was "blindsided" by the emails. Investigations continue, with the possibility of more incriminating revelations in the coming weeks.

While the scandal has yet to make a dent in Christie's favorability ratings, the long-term implications for the governor may be more profound. His popularity had given rise to talk of a run for the Republican presidential nomination ahead of the 2016 election. The real political fallout from "Bridgegate" might not be evident until it's dredged up by Christie’s Republican rivals. And the main beneficiary of one of the more bizarre political episodes of recent years may turn out to be none other than the 2016 Democratic Party nominee.

  |   January 10, 2014    2:38 PM ET

Politicians, pop stars, the Pope and more - check out our round-up of this week's silly snaps. (Warning: contains imagery of George Osborne.)

SEE ALSO: The Week In 50 Funny Tweets

Paul Vale   |   January 9, 2014    2:15 AM ET

Francis Maude has risked tweaking the nose of the American administration by bemoaning the antiquated approach to IT employed by the White House in its disastrous launch of the Obamacare website.

Speaking on Wednesday, the Cabinet Office minister said that the American government should have learned from the British approach to providing online access to public services, and in particular the success of the UK government's digital programme, including the gov.uk site.

francis maude

Francis Maude has slammed the Obamacare health insurance website

Maude also decried Washington's IT services as "some distance behind" its UK counterpart, adding that America was once a global leader in digital, a position it has relinquished to other nations.

Noting the success of the gov.uk site, a portal that brings the government billions in revenue from countries such as New Zealand that have paid for the source code, Maude said: "When the Obamacare web presence had a less than auspicious launch a few months ago there was a lot of commentary in the US press about 'why did they do it the old way, why didn't they do it the UK way?'.

"The British seem to be getting this right now with the Government Digital Service (GDS), they could have learned'. The US press said it in a way that must have been extremely irritating for the US administration but very flattering for us."

From its launch, the Obamacare website was beset with problems from an inability to cope with traffic to poor load times to questions over the reliability of data being transferred to the insurance companies.

Continual updates to the site in recent months have slowly ironed out many of the early difficulties and though the user experience remains far from optimal more than 1 million people have managed to sign up to the exchanges via the rehabilitated portal.

obamacare

The poor roll-out of the website caused considerable embarrassment to the Obama administration

On the Obamacare project, Maude continued: "It was an old-style, 'get a big company, give them a specification, tell them to go away and build it, come back, they launch it,' and it doesn't work."

The minister added that his department had not been consulted by the Obama administration but suggested that they "probably should" get in touch due to the global interest in the British government's IT roll-out.

More from the Press Association:

Maude described UK plans to allow people to use their bank's system to prove their identity on websites providing government services. Clicking on an icon would allow them to complete the check required by their bank, mobile phone company, or other service provider. The approach would cut the number of passwords people need to remember, and avoid the need for a central government system to establish identities.

"This is something that is a problem for countries that do not have an ID card system and a national ID database," he said. "So it is an issue for countries like ourselves and the UK. The US is going down the same path as we are, but they are some distance behind."

TOP STORIES TODAY

Does Obama Have a Second Act?

Jon-Christopher Bua   |   January 6, 2014    9:38 AM ET

After two weeks of non-stop golf on his family holiday in Hawaii, including a round with Prime Minister John Key of New Zealand, President Obama now rivals Ike as "The Golf President".

All this stress-free activity and no major national or international crisis must have recharged our Chief Executive's batteries.

One can only imagine how happy the President must have been to toast the end of 2013 and get on with the New Year.

Clearly 2013 was not the year he had hoped for as the start of his second term.

As with all second terms, President Obama's time to secure his legacy is limited before he becomes a "lame duck" and the nation begins to focus on 2016.

Despite all the campaign rhetoric from both sides of the aisle, nothing prepares one for this job and most presidents either grow into the position - or they don't.

It is rare that a president actually gets to accomplish what they have promised and set out to do as a candidate - unexpected events usually get in the way.

Some of the most revered presidents often did more in their "second acts" to build their legacy than they actually did while in office.

Once a president closes that Oval Office door behind him he still has the prestige of the office and the ability to command attention with none of the political constraints that come with the pressure of winning elections.

Also with the passage of time, the problems a president may have had seem to fade and the American people's forgiving nature leans toward remembering their more positive contributions.

In recent times some of the most notable presidents with a memorable second act have been:

Richard Nixon - most would say had a much more successful second act than a successful presidency. After leaving office Nixon became a true statesman and many, including presidents and world leaders sought his advice and counsel.

Jimmy Carter - whose presidency was plagued with a certain "malaise" and countless challenges seemed to have more than found his stride after leaving office with the work of the Carter Center - ensuring fair elections worldwide, promoting health in Africa and Latin America and working with Habitat for Humanity to provide housing for the poor.

George H. W. Bush - who left office on a very high note continued the work he started in office with the "1000 Points of Light" and his relief work with his former opponent and successor Bill Clinton to raise funds for both domestic and international relief efforts.

Bill Clinton - who had his own share of problems in office - used his post presidency fortune, fame and celebrity to work to better the lives of the less fortunate worldwide with the Clinton Foundation and the Clinton Global initiative.

George W. Bush - who shouldered criticism for Iraq and Katrina while in office has found his post presidential mission continuing the efforts he started while in the White House to battle HIV/Aids in Africa.

In his first term, President Obama passed his signature piece of legislation - the Affordable Care Act (ACA) - not so affectionately known as "Obamacare".

With a Democratic Senate and a reasonably significant number of Democrats in the House, Obama used all his political capital to pass this landmark piece of legislation with almost no assistance from the Republican opposition.

At the beginning of his second term, President Obama tried to make this piece of legislation actually work.

Unless the 2014 mid-terms dramatically shifts the balance and control in the Senate and the House of Representatives to the Democrats, the ACA is likely to be Obama's crowning achievement - so he really does need to make it work.

It was clear from the beginning that any attempt to change the existing dysfunctional US healthcare system was bound to be wrought with challenges and unintended consequences.

Whatever one might think of Obamacare, one thing is clear it will need significant adjustments to make it work without disrupting the entire existing healthcare framework in the US.

How the President deals with this challenge will be a large part of his legacy.

It is at this juncture where the interests of the President and his party may diverge.

The President does not have to get elected again, so the best thing for his legacy might be to take a lesson from Representative Paul Ryan and Senator Patty Murray - to sit down with the opposition to address the problems and unintended consequences created by the ACA and make it function smoothly for all Americans.

The President can only do this with the support of the few politically secure Republicans who are not up for election in 2014 or have no chance of losing or facing a primary challenge.

This will take tremendous political courage on behalf of the President and might alienate members of his own party.

This is the last thing Democrats who are up for election in 2014 and stood by the President putting their careers on the line to support the ACA may actually want him to do.

President Obama literally must decide what he wants to be remembered for when his time in office is at an end.

Does he want to be remembered for a landmark piece of legislation that works to make people's lives better for generations to come?

Or does he want to be remember for delivering the goods for his party in 2014?

This was the kind of political choice many of his predecessors had to face.

Most notably was LBJ who pushed through civil rights legislation at a huge political cost to his Democratic party for years to come.

Many hold LBJ responsible for losing the south for Democrats once and for all.

Obamacare has become such a "political football" that engaging in the nitty, gritty work with the opposition necessary to make this law really work is not a recipe for winning elections.

The mid-terms are about to go into full swing and the President will be expected to do his part to maintain control of the Senate and win more seats in the House of Representatives as the leader of the Democratic party.

So as he returns from the 'Aloha State' to his desk in the Oval Office he enters the last leg of his political marathon while preparing for his second act - his legacy - which will begin at the ripe old age of 55 in January 2017.

If the President does not succeed in making his Affordable Care Act work - and does not have a major breakthrough or accomplishment in immigration, the Middle East, Syria, North Korea, etc - he will have his work cut out for him to have a successful second act... Whatever that might be!

Recent Extreme Weather Events Must Give a Clear Signal to Governments

Anders Lorenzen   |   January 6, 2014   12:00 AM ET

On Friday 3rd January 2014, Britain prepared for severe flooding caused by strong winds. It's the third extreme storm that the UK has faced in less than a month. Last year at this time, the UK was battling freezing temperatures. Both weather events are extreme and abnormal.

Also on the very same day the north eastern part of North America was battling an extreme snow storm that had prompted the New York State Governor, Andrew Cuomo, to declare New York State in a state of emergency. Only a few weeks ago, possibly the strangest weather map for North America in 2013 had been produced. This time, New York was basking in unseasonally hot temperatures of 21 degrees C while, slightly inland and further north, the curve drastically broke with temperatures reaching -27 and Toronto in Canada facing a dangerous Ice Storm.

In 2013 we also saw the worst typhoon ever to have made landfall, Haiyan hit the Philippines with devastating impacts.

Australia are known for extreme hot temperatures, but last year it went up a notch, forcing weather forecasters to invent a new color code to accommodate the extreme hot temperatures.

Despite this, governments still seem to be in denial that this is caused by climate change despite the fact that year on year we have an increase in the severity and frequency in extreme weather events, as scientists have consistently predicted would happen. Some governments even deny the existence of man-made climate change altogether.

More than any other countries, Australia is bearing the brunt of climate change. But the government, led by climate sceptic Tony Abbott, is living in an idealistic dream world concentrating on expanding Australia's coal industry and repealing the carbon tax enacted under Labor's Julia Gillard.

In the UK, the government has cut back in flood defence spending, which coastal villages in the last month have felt the brunt of with huge financial consequences. When the first storm hit in the first half of December, UK's Environment Minister Owen Patterson, also a climate sceptic, referred to it as one in a hundred year storm, and we would be unlikely to see storms of this calibre in the near future. How wrong he has been proved by climate change itself.

In the US, the majority of the US Congress are still in denial about man made climate change - led largely by House Republicans, and President Obama's modest approaches to deal with climate change by regulating coal powered power plants, are likely to be met by lawsuit after lawsuit by Republicans and Republican controlled industry. Meanwhile, the US is set to overtake Saudi Arabia as the world's biggest oil producer by 2020. The Obama Administration has opened up more land for oil drilling than any other US president has ever done before.

It is time governments understand that climate change is here now, is hurting us and hurting the economy. Therefore the most sensible economic policy is to expand flood defence spending and other extreme weather events infrastructure spending.

Any politicians that in their own bubble, and pressurised by some industries, think that climate change is something made up by the political left, just need to open their eyes, look out the window and then fight to leave as much fossil fuel in the ground as possible to limit the consequences of future weather events as much as possible.

If you think the weather we have witnessed in 2013 and the beginning of 2014 is bad, know this, it will get worse a lot worse.

  |   December 31, 2013   12:34 PM ET

Britain has landed itself in a "constitutional mess" in the wake of the summer vote against military action in Syria, in which the Commons can be guaranteed to back intervention only to defend the Falkland Islands and Gibraltar, according to a former Foreign Office minister.

In his first interview on the Syrian crisis since losing his ministerial post in the autumn reshuffle, Alistair Burt said the failure of MPs in August to back the principle of military action against the Assad regime for the use of chemical weapons had left the mainstream opposition forces "absolutely devastated".

American Politicians Finally Come Together -- But Can The Truce Last?

Paul Vale   |   December 20, 2013   11:44 PM ET

In the five years since Barack Obama became the American president, the government has virtually come to a standstill. The daily business of Congress has reached a stalemate with the Republican Party blocking nearly every proposal or policy put forward by the Democrats. Gridlock has become the norm in Washington.

But that appeared to change this week, when a rare moment of compromise allowed the two parties to come together to pass a budget for the country. The new deal loosens some of the painful cuts that were imposed due to the parties’ failure to reach a budget agreement in 2011. It also means the wheels of government can continue to turn for the next two years, with federal agencies assured enough funding to pay their employees.

Agreeing on a budget sounds like one of the most basic jobs of any government, yet the two parties in Washington have become so polarized that the deal has appeared to push Republicans into an all-out civil war.

For several years, the Republican Party has been divided between establishment Republicans, those who have long occupied positions in Washington, and the party’s very vocal, conservative right wing, often known as the tea party. The far-right faction has had great success at raising money, and as a result has increasingly influenced decisions made by establishment Republicans. This has led to some disastrous strategy agreements for the Republican Party, including taking the country to the brink of financial calamity because Democrats wouldn't agree to scrapping Obama's health care law.

However, it seems the establishment Republicans have finally had enough. After conservative groups attacked the budget agreement, John Boehner, one of the most high-profile members of the Republican Party, accused them of "using the American people for their own goals."

Tea party groups shot back, saying those who had voted in favor of compromise -- the majority of Republicans in Congress -- were not being "true conservatives."

So the battle lines have now been drawn, with the heavily funded tea party faction once again threatening to challenge members of its own party in upcoming midterm elections, while the establishment Republicans look to distance themselves from the far-right groups that have been responsible for much of the national deadlock in recent years.

The notion of a divided Republican Party is certainly nothing new, with tensions between centrist members and its more ideological wing evident as far back as the early '60s. Yet the tensions have now been laid bare for the public, with Republicans focusing their attacks not on the president or the Democrats, but on each other. Whoever comes out on top in this civil war will not only have a defining role in the next general election in 2016, but will determine whether the citizens of the United States have a fully functioning government anytime in the foreseeable future.

The long-term implications are more profound. Should establishment Republicans hold sway, the tea party will likely splinter and fade, becoming just another footnote in the history of American politics. Should the far-right come to dominate, the party of Lincoln, Reagan and Bush could well find itself a party of opposition for more than a generation.

Miliband Must Define Himself Before The Tories Do, Warns Obama Campaign Veteran

Ned Simons   |   December 18, 2013   10:14 PM ET

Ed Miliband needs to define himself in the mind of voters before David Cameron and the Tory election machine does it for him, one of the key architects of president Obama's reelection victory has warned.

Stephanie Cutter, who served as Obama's deputy campaign manager in 2012, said to win the next election Labour needed to communicate a positive message with a sense of "urgency" rather than just focusing on the coalition's failures.

"When you're running against an incumbent, whether it's an incumbent named Barack Obama or David Cameron, there's a temptation to turn it into a referendum on the sitting leader," she said.

"Elections are about choices. The election was not a referendum on the president but instead a choice between Obama and Romney. As Joe Biden likes to say: 'Don't compare to the All Mighty, compare to the alternative'."

The Tory reelection team have long thought that Miliband's comparatively poor personal ratings with the public compared to Cameron's may hold the key to victory. The strategy was behind personal attacks on Miliband and repeated continued attempts to paint the "Red Ed" Labour leader as too left-wing.

Addressing a group of Labour activists in Westminster on Wednesday evening, Cutter, who now works for CNN, said the party should learn from the strategy the Democrats used in 2012 - before the Tories used it against them.

"Mitt Romney thought all voters needed to know was his name was not Barack Obama. His campaign focused on making the case against Obama rather than making the case for Mitt Romney. That was a crucial error. What he should have been doing was defining himself as a candidate, presenting a case for why he was the better choice."

She added: "By the time he figured that out it was too late. Because while the Romney campaign failed to introduce or define their candidate, we decided to step up and do it for them. We launched a comprehensive campaign push aimed at acquainting voters with the real Mitt Romney. As you might imagine, the portrait we painted wasn't a very flattering one."

Cutter was speaking at the event organised by LabourList alongside senior Miliband aide Lord Wood, former Obama campaign staffer and now Labour digital campaign adviser Matthew McGregor and former Gordon Brown aide Kirsty McNeill.

Cutter, who also worked on John Kerry's 2004 presidential campaign among other senior posts in Democratic politics including the White House, suggested Miliband needed to present a "positive vision" for the future rather than just focus on unpopular coalition policies.

"People gravitate towards those leaders that have positive vision for the future," she said. "Voters had no idea where Mitt Romney wanted to take the country. He was too busy complaining about the present to offer plans for the future."

She added: "Voters want to hear about the better future Ed Miliband has in mind for the UK. It can be easier to bash an incumbent than articulate the promise of a new candidate and his vision. Sometimes its more fun even. As both John Kerry and Mitt Romney learned the hard way, that's not a way to win an election.

Cutter said while it was important to highlight unpopular Tory policies, the case for where the country would head with Miliband in Downing Street needed to be made with a "sense of purpose and urgency".

In August the Conservatives scored a coup by securing the services of Cutter's former boss, Obama's 2012 campaign manager Jim Messina. Cutter warned that the Tories were trying to learn the lessons of the last presidential campaign.

Asked by the Huffington Post UK whether she was disappointed to see Messina work for the other side, she said: "That's a decision for Jim."

"Jim and I were colleagues. We haven't discussed the UK election at all or his decision to join Cameron. Or my coming here. We haven't discussed any of it," she said. "I do know that he is very skilled. There is a lot the Tories are trying to learn about what we did in 2012. And that shouldn't be proprietary information to just the Tories."

WATCH: Behind The Scenes Video Of Mitt Romney's Election Campaign

Ned Simons   |   December 18, 2013    2:32 PM ET

"Does someone have the number for the president?" Netflix has released a trailer for its upcoming behind the scenes film on Mitt Romney's failed 2012 presidential bid.

The documentary maker had access to the two-time Republican presidential candidate for six years and features interviews with Romney and his family. At one point one of Romney's son tells his father that if he loses: "We'll still love you. The country may think of you a laughing stock."

The trailer shows Romney preparing for debates, as well as admitting many voters view him as "the flipping Mormon" - a reference to his changeable positions on the issues. It also shows Romney ironing clothes he is already wearing.