91Èȱ¬

Commentators react to the news that military advisors are being sent to Libya.

that we may see more external military intervention in Libya:

"Even though this may make sense as the conflict lurches into a stalemate, the bloody-minded stubbornness of the Gaddafi regime - and its refusal to stop imperiling the lives of its own people - is clearly spurring the intervention's original French and British architects to raise the heat on Tripoli and boost the rebel cause. It may not be long before the current team of "advisers" sent to Benghazi is coordinating the distribution of foreign arms and military equipment to rebel forces, if that is not already underway."

that the latest move is not military intervention:

"The dispatch of a group of military officers to the rebel stronghold of Benghazi changes the shape of British involvement in Libya, and considerably. It should not, however, be understood as 'boots on the ground'. At most, it is a small selection of sensible shoes on the ground.
Ìý
"There is a difference. The ten-strong British group, along with a French group of a similar size, will not have a combat role. Instead, they will be advising Colonel Gaddafi's opponents on how to improve military organisation, and better protect civilians from his murderous onslaught."

to the news that Britain is sending military advisers to Libya by saying "this is what mission creep looks like":

"Without outside help in arms and possibly international back-up they will not be able to accomplish what everyone wants - getting rid of Col Gaddafi. With the Libyan effort bogged down, Gaddafi still in place, and no sign of any momentum to force him out, it is no wonder that those allies still committed to this adventure are looking for ways to help the rebels get on with the job. Italy is talking of sending military help. David Cameron and his ministers have tied themselves in knots to avoid ruling out military help. And now we have it. The Prime Minister will have to face unavoidable charges that this is mission creep, and it will be tempting to recall how John F Kennedy started with military 'advisers' in Vietnam."

that the latest move indicates mission creep and wonders how this can fit in with UN agreements:

"It's worth recalling that UN security council resolution 1973, passed last month, does not authorise member states to support the rebels, to defend armed groups, or to oust Gaddafi. Nor does it authorise an Iraq-style ground invasion or military occupation, in any shape or form, size or scale. But in reality, much of this is now happening, willy-nilly. Make no mistake: the creep is on."

Finally, senior fellow at the Council on Foreign Relations as he questions an assumption Western military action is based on - that Libya has tribalism:

"Few narratives of this conflict have been more enduring than the notion that tribalism dominates Libya's politics. But such tribalism has been significantly eroded, both by Col Gaddafi's hostility and economic modernisation. Libya's regime has long stressed that the nation was its most important unit. So traditional forces had to be suppressed."

Ìý

Ìý

Commentators discuss the referendum on whether to replace the first-past-the-post voting system with the alternative voting system.

The that apathy could lead to first-past-the-post being replaced by AV:

"With less than three weeks to go, the disturbing truth is that most voters remain as indifferent as on the day the LibDems first demanded this irrelevant exercise.
Ìý
"No wonder the turnout is expected to be dismally low. But as Mr Cameron warns, therein lies a huge danger.
Ìý
"For this public apathy may allow a small minority of AV zealots to triumph, saddling Britain with an obscure, unfair and expensive voting system that could seriously harm our chances of holding future governments to account."

Illustrating the apathy the leader article mentions is a the prime minister revealed that when he had asked customers at his local pub how they intended to vote they "had no idea what he was talking about".

with Liberal Democrat party members not to vote "no" out of revenge:

"The Tories ruled the last century on a minority of votes. It may be hard, but forgiving the Lib Dems will serve the left best...
Ìý
"For Labour the 'Can you ever forgive them?' question hangs in the air: as Ed Miliband well knows, victory almost certainly means coalition.
Ìý
"Even while sharing a platform, Cable yesterday talked about 'clearing up the mess in the economy' as his party's top priority, reminding us that nice Vince and every other Lib Dem MP voted through an extreme austerity budget that is now applying the brakes to economic recovery, while inflicting untold social damage that will take decades to repair.
Ìý
"Forgiveness will come hard to Labour and to defector Lib Dem voters alike, but those tempted to take revenge by voting no should better aim their ire at the organ grinder: a yes vote would throw a far bigger spanner into the coalition works, convulsing the Tories"

that the amount AV would affect results in general elections has been exaggerated:

"The alternative vote would make little difference in most general elections. It would not mean an end to safe seats or gift power to the BNP. The system offers a modest tweak, under which voters, if they wished, could place preferred candidates in order. If none reached 50 per cent, subsequent preferences would be reassigned until one contender passed that threshold."

Looking at the implications of the vote's result, that AV would not increase the amount of money the government spends:

"Since 2005 there has been a change from voting for the mainstream parties. This may have been down to the unpopularity of Labour and the Conservatives, leading to more protesting voting. Parties such as UKIP, Green and the BNP would have entered parliament as they received enough votes. This would have had little effect on governments, as the size of their vote was very small."

whether a "no" vote would provide the victory David Cameron "was denied last May":

"Ever since that event on May 11th 2010 the Tory right has been muttering against him and increasingly they've tried to dub him 'an election loser' with implied threats of what might happen if his referendum gamble failed...
Ìý
"The one danger now for NO is that the more Cameron looks set to win on May 5th the more Labour supporters might want to vote against him. The poll itself could influence the voting."

Finally, Vince Cable's use of popular culture in the voting system debate:

"With several weeks to go before the AV referendum the arguments are starting to get slightly repetitive. But Vince Cable has tried a different slant on the debate during this morning's joint press conference with Ed Miliband.
Ìý
"Instead of citing other countries with AV (Fiji, Australia, Papua New Guinea) he chose the - not entirely comparable - example of Strictly Come Dancing."

Commentators react to David Cameron's speech about immigration

• Read the speech in full

David Cameron connected with a "rage" present among voters about mass immigration:

"...polls show six out of ten Lib Dem voters are as angry about immigration as ordinary Tory and Labour supporters. They are the ones paying the price as migrants take jobs and housing and pile pressure on schools, hospitals and social services.
Ìý
"For millions of British voters who have been ignored, Mr Cameron's words are as welcome as they are overdue."

honest discussion about immigration is not about culture but about who finds the jobs:

"Try these numbers instead: 173,000 - that's the number of immigrants who found jobs in the UK in the past [sic] three months of 2010; 39,000 - that's the number of Brits who did. Those are numbers from the Office for National Statistics. Other numbers from the ONS (regional characteristics of foreign-born people living in the United Kingdom, by Miller and Reid, if you're bored) show that immigrants are less likely to have health problems, more likely to be married and less likely to claim welfare. So they're not coming here and taking our women or our benefits. But they are, undeniably, coming here and taking our jobs."

that Mr Cameron's words are insignificant because, she predicts, he won't keep his promises:

"Well, it is a farce and it is a con, and the timing - three weeks, in fact, before local elections - not to speak of the audience and the venue (Conservatives in lily-white Hampshire), bore the hallmarks of quite a cynical political calculation. But there's probably no need for the BNP to worry about copyright - or, indeed, for the Business Secretary, Vince Cable, to get quite as hot under the collar as he did yesterday - because on past performance Mr Cameron has little intention of acting on the inference of his words. This was a play for his political base, intended to deliver doubting voters from the temptation of putting their cross beside the Ukip candidate, or even the BNP, come 5 May."

there is a fundamental problem in the debate about immigration:

"David Cameron's speech on Thursday was a perfect example of everything that is wrong with the debate on immigration. He starts off by identifying 'concerns on the doorstep', 'myths have crept in', pays a bit of lip service to 'benefits of immigration' and then launches into 'controls', 'cuts' and 'abuses'. He, of course, leans into lazy Brits on welfare who do not want to do dirty jobs and his speech is full of anecdotes about immigrants abusing the system.
Ìý
"These are all very familiar arguments about the phenomenon of migration. But one thing that most politicians miss is that migration is neither good nor bad. It just is. Adding value judgments becomes problematic because when we talk about immigration, we are in fact talking about immigrants."

is illustrated by a picture of two women sitting next to each other on the tube, one wearing a niqab and the other with blonde hair. She argues debate on immigration is stifled by accusations of racism:

"Politicians' consistent refusal to recognise the fractures and strains placed on communities by mass immigration has led to the voter on the street becoming more disillusioned than ever. I am a happy Irish immigrant who has always trusted the instincts of Joe Public. As ministers assured Joe that school standards were higher than ever, he knew they had gone to hell. Unlike his rulers, he knew that the way the welfare system worked encouraged idleness. Political correctness, he spotted, was being used to stifle freedom of speech, particularly about mass immigration. 'You're a racist if you say anything about all these foreigners coming here,' Joe would grumble to his mates, as he looked over his shoulder."

Chairman of Migrationwatch UK about the 91Èȱ¬'s coverage of the speech, saying that the there is a "strong and widespread reluctance" in the 91Èȱ¬ to tackle the issue of immigration:

"One is left wondering how it is possible to have a sensible debate on immigration when the largest news organisation in the country is so hideously biased on this subject - to adopt the terminology of its former Director General Greg Dyke, who complained memorably that the corporation was 'hideously white'."
Ìý
"It would be wrong to tar the whole of the 91Èȱ¬ with a Radio 4 brush. The 91Èȱ¬ is a huge organisation. Some of their journalists are entirely professional, so are some of the editors."

This edition of Green Room assesses what information is available about the impact of the radiological incident at the Fukushima nuclear power plant. It also looks at online resources that help the amateur botanist tell the difference between a Fagus and Carpinus.

The tsunami wiped out power supplies at Fukushima, causing three of the six reactors to overheat

In the immediate aftermath, the world was shocked by wiped whole towns off the map, but another story was developing that would come to dominate the headlines.

Fukushima will now be forever associated with one of the world's most serious civil nuclear incidents, especially after Japanese officials this week reclassified the event to Level Seven on an international scale of seriousness. Until now, the only event to warrant a Level Seven status was Chernobyl.

, an-eight-level-system, was developed in 1990 by the nuclear sector as a method to communicate the seriousness of an event at a civil nuclear facility, in an effort to reassure people following the Chernobyl disaster in 1986. It ranges from Zero (no safety significance) through to Seven (major accident).

Now that the international media are no longer covering every twist and turn in minute-by-minute coverage, there are still a number of organisations providing at-least daily updates on developments.

The UN International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) has been attempting to amid confusing coverage across a spectrum of vested interests, from anti-nuclear activists to industry lobbyists.

On Tuesday 12 April, the IAEA offered an :

"The IAEA can confirm that the has submitted a provisional INES Level 7 rating for the accident at the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear power plant. This new provisional rating considers the accidents that occurred at Units 1, 2 and 3 as a single event on INES and uses estimated total release to the atmosphere as a justification. Previously, separate provisional INES Level 5 ratings had been applied for Units 1, 2 and 3."

As well as regular updates from Fukushima by the , the Japan Atomic Industrial Forum (JAIF) is , although some of the detail can get lost in translation.

An additional source of information is provided by . The news aims to be "plain English to place comprehensive coverage of nuclear power in context using background information, expert commentary and links to relevant authoritative sources".

Spring has sprung

Finally, if are planning on getting out and about to enjoy the delights of spring in full swing, then there are a number of online resources to help you identify the plants and animals around you. The British Trust for Ornithology ; the Woodland Trust is there to ; while the Botanical Society of the British Isles can offer guidance on a .

Commentators discuss changes in the NHS. This comes after the Health Secretary Andrew Lansley has apologised after the Royal College of Nursing conference delivered a vote of no confidence in his handling of National Health Service reforms.

that the NHS is crying out for a period of sanity and realistic spending:

"In truth it is too early to know the full impact of the "cuts". This financial year is only 13 days old. But we can already see that some decisions of the NHS are actually a sensible and long overdue restraint on the over-spending of recent years.
Ìý
"This can be seen most clearly in the list of drugs that some NHS bodies have withdrawn from prescription. Taking one example from the Cambridgeshire Primary Care Trust, it is immediately obvious that most of these drugs have very marginal benefits and should not have been on the list on the first place. The Cambridgeshire PCT describes several of the drugs as follows: 'no evidence of advantage', 'safety concerns', 'poor benefit / risk profile' and being 'particularly expensive'."

The Andrew Lansley's speech "sick and cowardly":

"Health Secretary Andrew Lansley's botched reforms have been put on hold while he conducts a 'listening exercise'.
Ìý
"But the delay has only added to the uncertainty for the thousands who work in the NHS. They deserve to be told where they stand and what the changes will mean for their jobs, working conditions and future."

that the Conservative claim that GPs support their NHS plans, but argues doctors oppose them as strongly as nurses do:

"[I]n addition to his welcome assertion today that substantial changes would be made to the health bill, Lansley demonstrated why healthcare professionals are so frustrated and antagonised. He sabotaged his diplomacy by parroting the usual guff about clinical support for his plans.
Ìý
"The only thing to say in defence of his statement that '90% of GPs' surgeries across the country have stepped forward and said we want to be pathfinders' is that at least he didn't claim - as he and colleagues have done - that 90% of GPs support the plans. This is patently untrue, since according to a survey for the Royal College of GPs barely 30% agree that the expanded model of GP commissioning can improve healthcare outcomes, and a mere 20% of GPs think the plans as a whole will result in better care."

The political blogger the nurse Jane Pilgrim who branded Andrew Lansley a liar:

"But the problem for Jane is that some people have a better memory of event in late summer 2009. Sources at the hospital have confirmed that Jane 'boycotted' the meeting for political reasons, refusing to meet the then Shadow Health Secretary. Those that did attend say far from Lansley saying there would not be cuts, he infact stated that 'he could make no promises and it would be up to local management'. Other people in the meeting have confirmed this version of events."

"His talk then of 'pointless reorganisations' of the NHS that 'then bring chaos' certainly got a great response delegates two years ago but then, like when Clegg made his pledge on student fees, they were in opposition. The world is so much different now they are in government but that doesn't stop the dreaded curse of YouTube.
Ìý
"Whatever the arguments in favour of the Lansley plan it's been presented appallingly and it's going to be very difficult getting off the hook. This clip will just make it more challenging."

the difference in leadership styles on the issue of NHS reforms:

"Miliband's performance this morning was striking for him speaking at a level of policy detail that party leaders normally eschew. He was happy discussing the intricacies of specific clauses of the bill. At one point, he remarked that 'for the nerds among us the really interesting thing is', before going on to discuss a point about competition laws. It'll be interesting to see how this approach plays with the public. It certainly contrasts with David Cameron's chairman of the board persona."

Commentators dissect US President Barack Obama's keynote speech calling for raised taxes on the rich as well as cuts in government spending, in what he termed a balanced approach to cutting the huge US budget deficit.

Under the headline, "President Obama, Reinvigorated", that "the man America elected president has re-emerged".

"For months, the original President Obama had disappeared behind mushy compromises and dimly seen principles. But on Wednesday, he used his budget speech to clearly distance himself from Republican plans to heap tax benefits on the rich while casting adrift the nation's poor, elderly and unemployed. Instead of adapting the themes of the right to his own uses, he set out a very different vision of an America that keeps its promises to the weak and asks for sacrifice from the strong."

The paper concludes that while "negotiations with an implacable opposition are about to get much tougher... it was a relief to see Mr Obama standing up for the values that got him to the table".

The as the latest instalment of "the fiscal drama in Washington", but said it was "too soon to tell if this will turn out to be tragedy, a heroic epic-or a farce".

"Mr Obama's draft goes like this: Get Democrats and Republicans to agree on what they can. Perhaps it's only a deficit target for fiscal 2014 and some "failsafe" mechanism to boost chances they keep the promise. That offers the public-and the markets-a little assurance Washington will do something about deficits before it's too late...

...If they can agree on something more-how much and what spending to cut, how much and how best to increase tax revenue-all the better. Odds are they won't. So they then carry competing approaches to the 2012 election and the winner decides."

Meanwhile, , argues that Obama's plan delivers only "imaginary solutions and tax increases".

"Mr Obama is a master of misdirection. Don't follow his patter and stagecraft - watch his hands. There is very little fiscal discipline in Mr Obama's plan at all. Much of his plan consists of unverifiable claims and promises. Indeed, Mr. Obama appears to be doing his utmost, given the reality of the nation's fiscally unsustainable course, to defend the entitlements and domestic spending programs so beloved of big-government liberals."

:

"In the truest sign that the 2012 campaign has begun in earnest, President Obama's budget speech on Wednesday veered sharply back to a familiar campaign-friendly, blame-heavy tone, aimed mostly at Republicans past and present... ...Obama hasn't brought back his infamous "car-in-the-ditch" metaphor, which dominated his stump speeches on the 2010 campaign trail. But it's becoming clear that the post-election resolution of calling for unity and avoiding partisan attacks are fading."

that "Obama made the moral case for what it means to be a Democrat".

"Crucially, right at the outset, Obama cast the battle with the GOP as one over whether we are going to maintain the social safety net and the national social contract as we've understood it for decades - and cast this question as central to our national identity..."

Meanwhile, , notes: "Obama the candidate is back. The president has gone into hibernation."

"This speech was about what he would do if he was president, not what he will actually do. The hard decisions are put off until, conveniently, after 2012 and 2014. Tax hikes will be automatically triggered if the budget is not kept down. Imagine. All congress and the president have to do is keep spending and an automatic tax hike will hit Americans. No fingerprints on a tax hike vote. The perfect zipless tax hike. This goes into the politician Hall of Fame."

Commentators dissect Action for Happiness, a campaign to boost the world's well-being, which was launched on Tuesday.

why he helped found Action for Happiness:

"It encourages personal responsibility by promoting healthy living, and actively discourages smoking, excessive drinking and the taking of drugs except when absolutely necessary. Finally, the agenda promotes productivity. Many studies have shown that companies which look after their employees well flourish economically and that is exactly what the movement is designed to achieve...
Ìý
"I wonder, in conclusion, whether all those who sneer at happiness and well-being would do so if their own children developed anorexia or the many other mental afflictions which are increasingly blighting the lives of young people. The right needs to wise up: this agenda is here to stay."

The if smiling becomes policy then politicians may face painful questions:

"It should be admitted at the outset that Action for Happiness offers latter-day sceptics (whether following Nietzsche or not) plenty of targets to have a pop at. There is the grandiosity of that self-description - splendidly undercut by the prosaicness of the "twenty practical actions for happiness", which urges people to hug each other, exercise more often and say thank you more often.
Ìý
"So far, so fluffy. But there is more substance to the happiness movement, as evidenced by the people behind it - including the LSE economist Richard Layard, and Geoff Mulgan, the former director of the government's strategy unit."

that the key to happiness is being a little less selfish:

"I doubt somehow that the answers will make him all that happy. Because these days too many people think they're entitled to happiness. Happiness is having even more possessions, sexual satisfaction, success at work, status. It's what you can have, rather than what you can give, which means, by definition, that we can never be content."

the "happiness lobby" should focus on local authorities and drugs:

"Research indicates that people are more satisfied with services the closer they are run to their community, as with clinics in Scandinavia or police in Japan. They are happier where they are allowed more personal and neighbourhood autonomy. Yet all British governments, national and local, remain implacably opposed to honouring this satisfaction. They do not trust people to tax and provide locally.
Ìý
"Likewise, there is a clear preference for smallness and intimacy in public institutions. People like small schools and small hospitals. They like their own GPs rather than group practices. Yet every move by government is in the direction of bigness, closing local schools and hospitals and aiming always at regional concentration.

it was a bad time to launch Action for Happiness:

"You might think that a year when a government is cutting hundreds of thousands of jobs, decimating public services and preparing to throw thousands of people out of their council homes, isn't an ideal time to be finding out whether those people start each day by whistling a happy tune. You might think that those people might feel a bit like they did when they heard that the Prime Minister, who is a multi-millionaire, took his wife, perhaps for the first time in her life, or his, on a Ryanair flight.
Ìý
"You might think that those people might also feel like they did when they heard him say that he wanted us to 'bring out the bunting' to celebrate the wedding of a nice young man to an alarmingly thin young woman. You might think, in other words, that those people might feel just a tiny bit patronised."

Commentators discuss Sir John Vickers' banking reforms report.

arguing the he has ignored all the "sound and fury" in favour of some sane suggestions:

"The main question the commission was asked to address - whether banks combining retail and investment banking arms should be split up - is in reality a sideshow to the main regulatory drama. It is hardly a coincidence that no other country seems worried about this issue...
Ìý
"On the question of whether the likes of Barclays and Royal Bank of Scotland should be broken up, the commission has decided against a complete separation, much to the relief of the banks, whose share prices jumped. The commission rightly concluded that the costs of such a move would outweigh the benefits. But to lessen the risks that problems in an investment banking arm could force the Government to bail out its retail bank, the commission proposes that the two sides should have separate buffers of capital to absorb losses...
Ìý
"Much more significant is the commission's suggestion that the retail arms should have to hold capital equivalent to at least 10 per cent of their assets. This is considerably more than the recently increased international standard of 7 per cent..."

the government should show leadership by splitting the banks up and "making sure they can never hold us to ransom ever again":

"There are two main proposals contained within the Commission's report. First, banks will in future have to maintain a capital base of at least 10 per cent, and secondly the retail parts of the big banks will have to be 'ring-fenced' from their investment arms. Neither will significantly reduce the chances of another banking collapse."

that Sir John Vickers has let the banks off lightly:

"It is high time there was an informed debate about the share of bank revenues devoted to remuneration, shareholders and tax. Unfortunately, the Vickers commission has ducked this issue.
Ìý
"It has backed away from radical reform for consumers too. The commission clearly looked at dismantling Lloyds' rescue merger with HBOS which was made at the height of the crisis and only after the government waived all existing competition considerations. This resulted in a further concentration of an already small number of banks and a reduction in customer choice."

The the panel has opted for safe solutions which won't have the desired effect:

"The relief in the nation's banking parlours - and the rise in bank stocks - spoke volumes as the mild-mannered Independent Commission on Banking presented its report yesterday. Instead of the radical shake-up which many of us hoped the high-level panel would produce, it has opted for safe solutions which will do nothing to puncture the arrogant complacency of the banking system.
Ìý
"Indeed, many of the proposals for making the culture of banking safer are already in train globally, including the requirement that banks hold much more capital - to protect against future disasters - and better separation of their 'casino' and retail activities."

The this is a missed opportunity for radical reform:

"[T]he ICB had a clear alternative path: complete separation of retail and investment banking. That would have wiped out any doubt in the mind of bankers or investors about the limited nature of the state's guarantee. Yet the committee's members chose not to go down that road. The report's justifications for this are terribly weak. It hints at the "costs" of a full separation and the 'benefits' of the universal banking model. Yet it does not spell out what it thinks these are, or how much they are worth.
Ìý
"The report reads as if it lacks the courage of its own convictions. The substance points one way, but the conclusion does not follow."

about the motivations behind the report:

"Sir John has seemed more attuned to political expedience than to the wider national interest. The bankers, of course, will protest against even the report's fairly modest proposals. They have grown accustomed to collecting fat rents in a rigged market. But you can already hear the sighs of relief in Downing Street and the clinking of glasses in the Barclays boardroom."

Commentators debate how Britain should treat its ex-colonies following Prime Minister David Cameron's meeting with Pakistan's Prime Minister Yousuf Raza Gilani.

Mr Cameron motivation for pledging to spend £650m on Pakistani schools and provide the nation's security forces with new technology:

"David Cameron is back from his guilt trip to Pakistan. He seemed to feel that he had to atone for the supposed sins of the British Empire by lavishing our money on the failing, chaotic Muslim state. So, while claiming that our past imperialism has created many of the problems in the region, he pledges to spend £650million on Pakistani schools and provide the nation's security forces with new technology...
Ìý
"A truly compassionate government would put the interests of the British people first."

The that the prime minister was right to face Britain's colonial past:

"Cameron was responding to a question about the Kashmir conflict - a product of Britain's partition of India in 1947 - and was clearly anxious to avoid antagonising either Indian opinion or his Pakistani hosts. 'I don't want to try to insert Britain in some leading role', the prime minister explained, with a modesty that eluded him in the buildup to Nato's intervention in Libya.
Ìý
"But his critics were having none of it. Cameron was being naive; he was playing to the gallery, they said; there was nothing to be guilty about - and, anyway, imperial history was all very complicated...."

Mr Milne goes on to suggest that Mr Cameron should go further than he did:

"[I]t's scarcely a coincidence that many of the world's most intractable conflicts are in former British colonies or protectorates: from the West Bank and Gaza, Iraq, Kurdistan, Yemen and Somalia to Pakistan, Sri Lanka, Afghanistan, Cyprus and Sudan - with the reflex imperial resort to partition a recurrent theme. What Cameron said in Islamabad can't seriously be disputed...
Ìý
"What's needed are not so much apologies, still less declarations of guilt, but some measure of acknowledgement, reparation and understanding that invasions, occupations and external diktats imposed by force are a recipe not for international justice but continued conflict and violence, including against those who stand behind them."

Conversely the Mr Cameron to stop apologising:

"I admire David Cameron, and believe that he has qualities that might make him a great prime minister. He diminishes himself, nonetheless, when he speaks ill of Britain abroad.
Ìý
"If our Prime Minister is not proud of his country, its past as well as its present, then it becomes all the harder to make the rest of its citizens honour our heritage as we should."

both colonialists and the colonised should all move on:

"[I]t is no longer good enough to blame Britain. It is an easy get-out-of-jail card for failing and corrupt leaders to blame the last Empire.
Ìý
"Yes, mistakes were made, but that is no excuse for bad government.
Ìý
"The British Empire has a mixed legacy, but the challenge for nations like Pakistan to rise above history.
Ìý
"That should be David Cameron's message."

Political blogger that David Cameron's pledge was made on the same day a 40% tax rate kicked in at £35,000 above the personal allowance:

"It was pointed out to Guido that the gift of £600m that Cameron pledged to Pakistan yesterday is more than the tax take from this squeeze on middle-earners. But it's ok he's sure they are very grateful."

Commentators discuss Deputy Prime Minister Nick Clegg's document .

that ambitious working class kids will be the biggest losers in Mr Clegg's "patronising war on unpaid internships":

"As someone who attended a comp, grew up in a terraced house with seven other people and had never heard of The Archers until the age of 19 (when some girl in a pub started banging on about it), you might think I would welcome Nick Clegg's social mobility strategy and his attack on unpaid internships. Not a bit of it.
Ìý
"Under the guise of launching a class war against tennis club poshos and their allegedly ruthless sons and daughters, Clegg - who himself is hardly Albert Steptoe - is trampling all over the art of hustling. He threatens to replace the spark and spirit that drive some young people to force their foot through the door of their desired profession with a jumped-up job-creation scheme, where the state will take responsibility for ensuring that all youth, regardless of verve, are placed in semi-paid tea-making positions. This will be bad for young people, and bad for the companies they end up kind-of working for."

that if there is no industry and no jobs, there is no incentive to push oneself up the class system:

"Class is nowadays basically a function of income. It can't respond to some quick-fix Cameron initiative or Clegg internship. Divisiveness will get worse because the political economy of Britain is structurally inept at generating and redistributing wealth across the human landscape. The only real aid to upward mobility is income and growth. That is why the last thing Cameron should have done was put up VAT."

Ìý

Conservative MP that, if the government is to achieve social mobility, there is a more pressing need than internships:

"There are many ways for young people to aspire to much higher incomes than their parents. They all entail lots of hard work. Being a star foiotballer [sic], a leading singer, a great dancer or a well known actor all require plenty of discipline and training. The social reformers have in mind more people from the inner cities becoming High Court judges, leading barristers, senior medical consultants, leading accountants and writers. These professions can offer attractive levels of financial reward, but all require substantial academic achievement on the part of their recruits.
Ìý
"The single most important thing the government can do to bring this about is to reform the state schools so that more of them enthuse, encourage and promote academic excellence."

what the document means for the Liberal Democrats:

"The important thing is that Clegg has now grasped this nettle firmly, and will be introducing reforms which ensure that unpaid interning comes to an end, so that all the future Nick Cleggs of this world can be paid for their efforts.
Ìý
"The bankers and politicians who were recruited under the old who-your-father-knew/unpaid internship system have now clambered to the top of the greasy poles of high finance and political office. Fortunately, they are all absolutely brilliant chaps, and evidently the best people for their jobs.
Ìý
"The country is safe in their hands."

that the government's report on social mobility is too long and not original:

"The government's new report into social mobility is, it tells us, all about 'opening doors' and 'breaking barriers' - but it's probably taxing attention spans too. 89 pages of text and graphs, offset by the same pea soup shade of green that's used for all these coalition documents. To save you from wading through it all, here's our quick... summary:
Ìý
"1) The same story... Much of the report, as James suggested earlier, is familiar territory. After all, the coalition's two most developed policy areas - welfare and education - are precisely designed to improve opportunities for the least well-off; so here they are again, restated and slightly reframed."

Commentators analyse the West's involvement in Libya after the Libyan government has said Muammar Gaddafi must stay in power to avoid a power vacuum.

there is disagreement about the role of Western armed forces in Libya:

"David Cameron and Nicolas Sarkozy seem confident we can confine our role to that of armed referee: prevent a humanitarian disaster, and thereafter leave the Libyans to settle their own future.
Ìý
"Last month, I quoted General Colin Powell's warning to President Bush before the 2003 invasion of Iraq: 'It will be china shop rules. You break it, you own it.'
Ìý
"David Cameron believes this principle does not apply in Libya, because we have not invaded the country and do not intend to.
Ìý
"Almost everybody else, however, both in and out of uniform, assumes that having taken sides in a Libyan civil war, we must assume a responsibility, which will be hard to fulfil, for achieving a benign outcome."

if America is addicted to war:

"Since taking office, Obama has escalated U.S. involvement in Afghanistan and launched a new war against Libya. As in Iraq, the real purpose of our intervention is regime change at the point of a gun. At first we hoped that most of the guns would be in the hands of the Europeans, or the hands of the rebel forces arrayed against Muammar al-Qaddafi, but it's increasingly clear that U.S. military forces, CIA operatives and foreign weapons supplies are going to be necessary to finish the job...
Ìý
"It remains to be seen whether this latest lurch into war will pay off or not, and whether the United States and its allies will have saved lives or squandered them. But the real question we should be asking is: Why does this keep happening? Why do such different presidents keep doing such similar things? How can an electorate that seemed sick of war in 2008 watch passively while one war escalates in 2009 and another one gets launched in 2011? How can two political parties that are locked in a nasty partisan fight over every nickel in the government budget sit blithely by and watch a president start running up a $100 million per day tab in this latest adventure? What is going on here?"

that whether declared or not, we are at war in Libya and supports an armed attack:

"It is the nature of democracies and diplomats to dither, procrastinate and explore non-violent means to resolve difficult questions, and this is no bad thing. Nevertheless, some decisions can only be put off for so long, or the result can be a Rwanda, a Srebrenica, an Auschwitz. In Libya we waited almost too long. Now that we are committed, we need to use the full measure of our air, technical and logistical superiority to ensure the speedy removal of the Gaddafi regime. If we drop this ball, we could yet stand indicted before the whole world as big on talk, but lamentably short on action. In this case humanity demands action, and so does political interest."

the emergence of Saif al-Islam Gaddafi as a player in the current moves to end the Libyan crisis has been a "further obstacle":

"As the Europeans - and perhaps to an even greater extent, the Americans - look for an exit, it may be tempting to see Muammar Gaddafi's second son and his reform project as part of any solution. Some on his pre-crisis reform committee are now siding with the opposition and could theoretically offer some common ground.
Ìý
"Yet there remain some problems. The first is the fate of his father. On Sunday, an anonymous diplomat told The New York Times that part of Saif's proposal was that his father would stand down and that Saif would lead the transition to something closer to democracy. This may be true, but even the diplomat doubted this was acceptable to Colonel Gaddafi, let alone the opposition in the east."

the UK's armed involvement in Libya.

A cartoon representing British Foreign Secretary William Hague says "I cannot be seen to be negotiating with a mad dog tyrant murdering his own people." To which a character looking like Col Gaddafi responds:

"Woof, no problem. I simply demand debriefing in secret by bald bloke in expensive Kensington and Chelsea safe house, woof! You can murder as many of my people as you like, no questions asked, woof."

Ìý

Commentators dissect US President Barack Obama's announcement that he intends to seek re-election in 2012.

The that the challenge the president faces in 2012 is "far different than the one he faced as a relatively unknown first-term senator seeking to reclaim the presidency for Democrats after eight years of George W. Bush's administration." He writes:

"Then, Mr Obama pledged to confront rising health care costs, an economy that was showing signs of weakness, a nation dependent on foreign oil and a "tragic and costly war that should never have been waged. His message - often boiled down to just 'hope' and 'change' - was simple: 'Elect me,' he said, 'and things will change.'
Ìý
"Now, Mr Obama must defend his own unpopular wars, an economic recovery that remains fragile, fiscal policies that have drawn skeptics, and energy policies that have stalled in the face of natural and manmade disasters.
Ìý
"And most of all, the president must find a way to explain how he made good on promises to change the way Washington conducts itself in spite of a brutally divisive health care fight and an ongoing budget standoff that appears to have bogged down in the same politics that Mr Obama decried as a candidate in 2008."

that the president's campaign announcement was a thoroughly modern style of declaration:

"Barack Obama's official announcement of his re-election bid for the 2012 presidential election is a million miles away from the traditional setting of a brass band on a stage decked with American flags.
Ìý
"Using modern media to the full, the first news of Obama's announcement came this morning via the internet, YouTube video, Twitter and in an email to supporters from Obama himself...
Ìý
"The 2012 campaign's opening video to supporters, seen above, is even more unusual in that it does not show Obama himself. Instead it concentrates on the words of 'real Americans', talking about their responses to Obama. 'I don't agree with President Obama on everything,' says Ed from North Carolina, 'but I respect him.' The aim of the video is to energise Obama's supporters and reignite the winning campaign spirit from 2008."

That the announcement was widely anticipated and came as no surprise is best summed up by a :

"Dog bites man: Obama's 2012 reelection campaign announcement video"

Andrew Malcolm goes on to say in the article that a key component is money:

"Barack Obama's campaign says it needs $1 billion to re-convince Americans that the third sitting senator to become president is the real hope and change guy. And there's still so much to do and money to spend.
Ìý
"But first, comes the money-raising part. And coincidentally, the second quarter of 2011 starts today for political fundraising and reporting. A big reported number at the end of June might impress some people, scare some others and stop all this media mumbling about Obama's vulnerability just because the unemployment is still big and there's a third war going."

that "Monday's date also has a little play on numbers: the announcement comes on the fourth day of the fourth month for the 44th president."

"Obama's re-election effort is going to be based in Chicago, a different approach to many of his predecessors and an attempt for the campaign to be seen as outside of Washington. He's expected to go to the windy city in two weeks for a fundraising event. Vice President Biden will be in the key political state of New Hampshire Monday and holding an event with supporters in the afternoon."

that the formal filing of papers to run in 2012 "will give Obama the legal opportunity to begin using the campaign infrastructure his staffers have built behind the scenes, and begin an aggressive fundraising effort that could net him close to $1 billion in donations between now and the fall of next year."

"Polls testing Obama against generic Republican candidates or any of those GOP contenders suggest that Obama, like many incumbent presidents, starts the campaign with an early advantage over his would-be challenger. That advantage is almost certain to winnow, though, as the 2012 campaign reaches full-swing next year and voters start to pay more attention, and familiarize themselves with the Republican nominee.
Ìý
"Regardless, political analysts have said Obama has positioned himself well for another run, shaking off what he called the "shellacking" of the 2010 midterm elections.
Ìý
"Perhaps the biggest variable facing Obama is the state of the economy next fall. Polls of voters repeatedly rank the economy and employment as top concerns going into the election, and dissatisfaction with the pace of the recovery drove Republican victories in the 2010 midterm elections."

However, that Mr Obama's pitch to voters could be a difficult one:

"If you want credit for stopping a disaster, you have to wait until the disaster is already under way to act, like President Clinton did in Bosnia.
Ìý
"This is a problem for public policy because preventing disasters is infinitely preferable to stopping them in progress. And it's a political problem for Obama, who kicked off his re-election campaign on Monday. He is the counterfactual President, not just on his Libya policy, but on almost all his policies. And as his aides often complain, "I prevented a disaster" is a lousy political slogan. Or as Democratic Congressman Barney Frank of Massachusetts has put it, "It would have been even worse without me" ain't much of a bumper sticker."

Commentators discuss how politicians are managing potential changes in the NHS:

MC NxtGen, who the is a bin man from Loughborough, has released a song on YouTube called Andrew Lansley Rap criticising proposed changes in the NHS. The chorus finishes with: "The NHS is not for sale you grey-haired, manky codger." And then a verse goes on to criticise Andrew Lansley's white paper which proposes changes to the way the NHS is run:

"So the budget of the PCTs,
"He wants to hand to the GPs, Oh please.
"Dumb geeks are gonna buy from any willing provider,
"Get care from private companies...

"We'll become more like the US,
"And care will be farmed out to private companies,
"Who will sell their service to the NHS via the GPs,
"Who will have more to do with service purchase arrangements,
"Than anything to do with seeing their patients."

The that MC NxtGen's rap was based on an excerpt of an interview in which Mr Lansley "scoffed at the opinion of The Lancet, one of the world's most respected medical journals". Mr Beckford predicts David Cameron faces a "humiliating" U-turn on the issue:

"Some Conservatives say ruefully that the most important changes could have been made without primary legislation, and that the tortured introduction of the Health and Social Care Bill has just handed the initiative to opponents. As it is, Mr Cameron faces a humiliating U-turn on an issue on which his reputation rests, or pushing on with a Bill that enjoys scarcely any support among the people who will have to implement it.

"Although the British Medical Association has rowed back from outright opposition to the Bill and the threat of industrial action, the impact of public protests against the Government's spending cuts has clearly been noted by the most vocal opponents of health reform."

Conservative about privatisation of the NHS:

"What worries me about the reforms however is the difficulty of organising fair competition between the state-owned hospitals and those in the private sector.

"In my time I have seen many efforts to create competition between state-owned airlines, car factories and steel makers. They all came unstuck. The unfairnesses were not all one way and they spring from the fact that state-owned and financed businesses and private sector ones are different animals."

that Andrew Lansley also needs to explain his changes in a way the electorate will understand:

"Lansley's main problem is that hardly anyone understands what he is trying to do. As one colleague laments: 'Andrew knows everything but can't explain it in three simple sentences. And if you can't do that in modern politics, you're in real trouble.'"

The the changes. It agrees that Mr Lansley has done a "lousy" job of explaining the changes and argues that this has encouraged the spread of a misunderstanding that the government's reforms spell the end of the NHS:

"That is nonsense. Funding and charging do not change under the reforms. There will be a bigger role for the voluntary and private sectors, but not any time soon a large one and maybe never if the public sector responds to choice and competition. Moreover, the duty of the economic regulator is to promote competition only 'where appropriate'. None of this represents wholesale privatisation of the NHS on either the demand or the supply side. Much of it builds on what Tony Blair, Labour's former prime minister, was working on."

Ìý

Ìý

Commentators weigh up the pros and cons of the alternative vote (AV) ahead of the referendum in May.

, following success in German elections, that a "Yes" to AV could make the Green Party a force to reckon with:

"More than anything, the British Greens need to attach themselves to a set of issues which they and the electorate both care about enough to be an effective protest party. Is nuclear power that issue, as it was at the German state elections? It certainly cannot be ignored as a focus. But the HS2 rail project through the Chilterns and the Vale of Aylesbury could be a better campaigning bet in parts of southern England and the Midlands. The Greens may be a radical party, but they have to look for conservative appeal...
Ìý
"Vote for AV and the Greens could eventually be Britain's fourth party. Vote against it and they will remain firmly rooted in the margins of the margins."

This increased influence of minority parties worries that AV may bring more power for the BNP:

"Research out today from the No to AV campaign suggests that in the region of 35 constituencies could have their outcomes determined by the second preferences of BNP voters. This is the unwelcome empowerment that the AV system brings to democracy.
Ìý
"There is nothing new about the idea of an Alternative Voting system. When the idea was last mooted in 1931, Winston Churchill spoke up against it. [He said] 'Imagine making the representation of great constituencies dependent on the second preferences of the hindmost candidates. The hindmost candidate would become a personage of considerable importance, and the old phrase, 'Devil take the hindmost' will acquire a new significance.'"

The AV is worse than the first-past-the-post system and expresses concern that voters may not be aware:

"[M]ost members of the electorate are not intending to vote in the referendum, and have not even reached the point of yawning. They are instead blissfully unaware of the approaching referendum on the voting system and, if asked, can only guess at the meaning of the alternative vote.
Ìý
"And this is very dangerous. Britons could wake up on May 6 to discover that the country has a new voting system, one selected by the small number of enthusiasts promoting the scheme. It will be too late for others - noticing only at the next election, the change that has been wrought - to protest that they had not appreciated what was going on because they did not regard the whole thing as interesting enough to leave the house and cast a ballot."

The that AV is over-complicated:

"The official guide to the May 5 referendum, being sent to every home in Britain, sums up our present voting system in just seven words: 'The candidate with the most votes wins.'
Ìý
"So how revealing that it needs more than three pages to explain the basics of the Alternative Vote, which the Yes campaign wants us to adopt instead. Isn't there something very suspect about a system so hard to describe?"

Research fellow in astronomy at the University of Sussex that the AV system is actually simpler than the first-past-the-post system. He's made a flow chart to prove his argument. The flow chart shows six stages between the vote and the outcome for first-past-the-post compared to one stage for the AV system.

that, for him, the arguments are subtler than the "No" campaigners are making out:

"[I]s it really a good argument to say that AV ends 'one man, one vote' for which we have all fought? I put aside my out-of-date nostalgia for the old university seats, which gave some people two votes and wonderful MPs such as A. P. Herbert. The Tory party actually fought to retain them and is still technically committed, by a pledge made in 1951, to their reintroduction. I am willing to give up that fight.
Ìý
"But it seems odd to me to say that under AV we end 'one man, one vote'. No one compels you to give a second preference. But if you do give a second preference, is it not legitimate to say: 'I want to use my vote first for him and then if that doesn't work, secondly for her?' I think it is a dubious argument to say that doing so means I have two, or one and a half votes. I am just using my vote on two separate occasions."