As votes go the decision by South Sudan to secede from the North is pretty conclusive.
http://uk.reuters.com/article/2011/01/30/uk-sudan-referendum-idUKTRE70T0KW20110130
The figures for turnout and majority of 98% and 99% respectively are the sort of numbers one would expect to see for a phony election in a non democratic election and as such are so overwhelming as to be impossible to ignore. Such a one sided vote may make the split easier but there is a number of issues to deal with, and while the people of the south may be overjoyed at the result the issues to be resolved may flare up old tensions that lay behind the war. Whilst ethnic and religious differences can be resolved by separating the people in the two new countries, economic matters may not be as readily solved as the south has most of the oil and the north has the pipeline as well as South Sudan being more arable compared to the desert in the north.
   I heard somebody complaining that we were trying to impose our Western ideology and system of government in the area again after not learning from previous experience of Westerners attempts at "Civilisation" of Africa. The point that African politics was more tribal based and the notion of nations a concept we forced on them, and they don't like the idea of a centralised government in a capital potentially miles from where they live is a little too simplistic. Many people living outside of the capital city fell isolated from the political scene and tribalism is not limited to Africa. All of Europe consisted of tribes until over time they congregated together for a common purpose - often working together to defeat a common foe. The Roman Empire helped in uniting the many disparate tribes and those that did not comply were wiped out but even after it's fall most countries as we know them now were still a congregation of regions. Isolated as we are in the UK from the continent and thus having a common purpose amongst ourselves still saw Saxons, Angles and Celts fighting with each other in Wessex, Mercia, East Anglia and Northumbria until Alfred from Wessex gained dominion over the other areas. After Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland also joined the Union we are now at the stage where we seem to be looking to devolve back ourselves. Scotland has it's own Parliament and there are assemblies in Wales and Northern Ireland. There are calls for a referendum on Cornwall's Independence and regional assemblies have been mooted for the rest of England. This is because despite the advantages of being a larger state with an increased revenue and with greater numbers of people to call on we believe we have lost a sense of identity when in fact it probably never existed. Everybody seems obsessed with this idea of local identity as if their region is any more special than the one next door or the one at the other end of the country. We tell jokes about our near neighbours and look forward to the local derby match when we can jeer at the opposing fans who we presume to be less intelligent, miserly and less happy knowing full well that they think the same of us. In some cases these character types become self perpetuating so that the Yorkshireman who has been brought up to think he has to be forthright and careful with his money fulfills the stereotype and we tick the box and say "See I told you they were like that". However the thousands of others not from that county that also fit those personality traits don't matter as no one is monitoring their behaviour as well as the bad apples from Yorkshire who refuse to conform who will simply be ignored (not literally only nobody will think it worth commenting on them as in "Look at him keeping himself to himself as he gets his round in: how atypical of a Yorksireman).
   Anyway my point, if I actually had one, was that people in Africa are not so different, just at a different stage in their political evolution - and even then not so far: Splitting of countries is so 1990s (apart from Germany who had to go the other way just to be different). We've done tribalism, we've done nations and at the moment we're not quite sure what we want flirting both with devolution and integration into a bigger state (i.e. the European Union) at the same time. Sudan has voted to split and until the possible Independence day in July we can only hope that the process is as smooth as possible and that the name of the new country is something less prosaic than South Sudan.

The new initiative announced by the Works and Pensions Minister Chris Grayling to increase work experience schemes from two to eight weeks for 18 to 21 year olds does not sound like a great solution to youth unemployment despite the fanfare.
http://www.dwp.gov.uk/newsroom/press-releases/2011/jan-2011/dwp007-11.shtml

   Aside from the fact that the government cuts are helping to create youth unemployment as well as the knock on effect of having to work longer thus not freeing jobs up as soon as regular all this is doing is adding 6 weeks of experience in the same place to put on a CV. If an employer does not have a position for the person on works experience after two weeks then they are unlikely to have one after eight weeks bearing in mind that is not for those under 18 where they may have the time to work somewhere whilst studying but for those who in the main are looking for a permanent job.
   A worse case scenario could see it reduce the number of available jobs as an employer can take somebody on for two months without having to pay them and get them to do menial tasks rather than actually employing anyone. After there work experience has concluded the employer can then take another 18-21 year old on work experience. No doubt there will be occasions where it does help improve a CV and lead to future employment elsewhere, or in some rare cases at the same company but employers are not going to hire people just for the sake of it. This is not a job creation scheme and as long as the cuts continue to bite then unemployment will continue to rise creating a buyers market for firms free to offer posts with low pay and long hours.

David Cameron may try to brush away accusations of poor judgement in the light of Andy Coulson's resignation and pretend the whole thing is a nothing story by wishing him well in the future but hoping the story dies down does not make it so.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-12251456

At best Coulson was ignorant of what was going on under his stewardship as editor of the News of the World and at worst he was involved in illegal phone hacking, neither of which attribute is to be commended in the Prime Minister's spokesmen. So Cameron has shown poor judgement when he hired someone who was stupid or crooked especially as all this is hardly a recent development and Cameron was well aware of the potential for scandal when he appointed him as Director of Communications.

For too long people have hidden behind religion to justify views counter to those of the majority or to the laws of the land but thankfully the ruling that the owners of a B & B, Mr and Mrs Bull, were wrong to turn away a gay couple from their premises shows that the courts are not always scared to question decisions when religion is mentioned.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-bristol-12214368

   The excuse that it was their property and they were entitled to dictate the rules therein is disingenuous as it does not give you the right to be discriminatory. If they were to claim that their religious views meant that guests must perform an animal sacrifice and the entrails examined to see if the omens were propitious to them being good guests there would be a public outcry. However, when they impose their beliefs on others to their detriment there does not seem to be as much of a fuss. A similar situation occurred when Christian groups that offered adoption services complained that they were uncomfortable arranging for gay couples to adopt children when the only consideration should be what is best for the child. If you are not comfortable with the rules of that profession you should not be working in that area. That may sound harsh in today's climate but I have my own set of moral guidelines that mean I would not seek work in certain environments, even if I were capable of doing them. So prostitution is out (I wouldn't earn much anyway) as is arms manufacturer, salesman (not pushy enough) and banker. As for the service sector I think you need to have a certain type of personality to deal with the public all day and I don't have it. Neither it seems do Mr & Mrs Bull who if they are prepared to open up their house to all and sundry must learn to be more tolerant.

The recent by-election in Oldham East and Saddleworth is a curious affair for a number of reasons starting with the courts overruling the General Election result and stripping Phil Woolas of his seat for his controversial election pamphlets. Ordinarily the party of government fares badly in these votes where there loss of vote from the general election result is used as some sort of referendum on their performance. In this case, however, we have two partied in government with the last MP a Labour member expelled for wrong doing - not a common circumstance. The public could have easily punished Labour for the dirty tactics of Woolas as comment on the Coalition. As it happened the Tories took a back seat to allow Labour's closest rivals, the Lib Dems a chance at winning the seat but as the Tory vote collapsed the Lib Dem vote stayed the same as borrowed Tory votes replaced those disenfranchised liberals who went back to Labour.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-12191431

   In an interview the Tory MP Mark Pritchard (who has had a busy week after swearing at the Speaker http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-12195973 ) seemed happy with the Conservatives not campaigning too heavily on the proviso that their Coalition partners reciprocated whenever a by-election occurred that the Tories were better placed to beat Labour. In seats with a three way split all bets were off apparently. This is assuming that voters who put their cross next to Lib Dem last time would vote Conservative. No doubt there will be a loyal group who will be happy to support the Coalition but if there share of the vote only stayed the same with Tory support it indicates that they are more likely to switch to Labour. Presumably Mr Pritchard and his colleagues are aware of this and are merely glossing over the poor showing that the Conservatives had by claiming it as a favour for their new friends. By-elections in this parliament could be more interesting than usual.

Aside from the case of Mark Stone / Kennedy appearing to have "gone native" as the undercover policeman found his sympathies changing as he allied himself with the environmental protesters he was supposed to be keeping under surveillance, it looks as if he was more of an agent provocateur.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-12148753
Reports that he is not the only undercover operative in this area are staggering and must surely be a waste of resources given that he spent 7 years with the protesters until he was confronted by a group of people who can not seriously be considered a threat to society especially as his contribution was to give evidence supporting them.
   The strange thing about this case is some curious phrases by representatives on both sides that I heard on the radio. Firstly Andy Hayman was speaking to Victoria Derbyshire on radio Five Live in his capacity as a former Assistant Commissioner of the Met when as well as admitting that too many undercover operations would be a waste of resources made the astonishing claim that such operations as this one were valid as they were not only trying to collect evidence to prosecute somebody but also to prove innocence.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/console/b00xbf0n/Victoria_Derbyshire_10_01_2011

His interview occurs between 1hr 37 mins 25sec and 1hr 41mins 50 secs and is breathtaking that he believes we need undercover work to prove innocence in a country where we are presumed to be innocent already until proved guilty.

   Later on the same station the group's lawyer Mike Schwarz was talking to Gabby Logan when he was asked if he thought Stone/Kennedy had encouraged others to commit crimes and whilst he admitted that he had no first hand knowledge he believed he may well have done.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/console/b00xbf84/Gabby_Logan_10_01_2011

This interview occurs between 1hr 6mins 40secs and 1hr 10mins 50secs of this programme and the mentioned admission appears to contradict his statement on the affair:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2011/jan/10/activism-climate-change?intcmp=239

In the above statement he claims that none of his clients were guilty of any crime yet by accusing Mark Kennedy of inciting others he implies that they did commit crimes. Presumably he was trying to have a dig at Kennedy, who had upset his clients, without thinking the implications of what he was saying through properly.

The polarizing nature of American politics at the moment has quickly shown itself as all sides seek to point fingers in the wake of the shooting of congresswomen Gabrielle Giffords in Tucson, Arizona.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-12148761

As usually follows a tragedy people try to find someone or something to blame other than those directly responsible ie the gunman in this case. Whether it is death metal music, video nasties or Tea Party rhetoric we need to find society's bogeyman to unearth the underlying cause of why the tragedy occurred. None of these factors specifically told the gunman to pull the trigger and as of the moment his motives are unknown but to blame politics in general is slightly disingenuous when one of the victims was a nine year old girl who had probably not thought too much about who she would vote for when she was old enough. Saying that music and film are merely forms of entertainment whereas the Tea Party are a political organization who have hopes of power and as such owe a certain responsibility as to how they conduct themselves. One consequence may be that they calm down a bit, although the vitriol is such that this may only be for a short time, and it is interesting that Sarah Palin must have felt slightly guilty by taking down some of the more controversial messages from her website / Twitter account. If the crosshairs over Giffords' seat were not intended as gun sights why worry about taking them down now. What may cause them to calm down is the American public angered by this tragedy and making a link that is not necessarily there. Sick of the mudslinging and wanting to see serious politicians in office rather than attack dogs who can concentrate on forming policy instead of abusing the opposition, the public may decide that they will vote for the politician who conducts themselves like a politician and takes a more measured stance. I'll not hold my breath just yet.

I do not make any claims to be an expert in economics and in fact I find most talk of it boring as I have no interest in fiscal matters no matter how much it may affect my own pocket. However, even I can see that George Osborne is clutching desperately at straws to claim today's rise in VAT from 17.5% to 20% will help increase employment.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-12110945

For all the pros and (more) cons of this policy his logic that  "it would "increase employment" because it would increase confidence that the government was tackling the budget deficit" just does not add up. Even if business leaders felt that they are now confident that the deficit was being controlled that does not then necessarily mean that they are going to start employing people. As it is most small businesses are using the recession to rationalize and save costs by reducing the workforce and freezing pay. This means that households have less money and with the VAT hike are less likely to buy anything other than essential. This could therefore see smaller retailers having to let staff go as their profits diminish creating a vicious circle. Rather than increasing the revenue gained from VAT if fewer purchases are made any increase from the higher rate may be negated by less items being sold. Such rates are always going to be a balancing act and economists better qualified than I will have differing views on the matter but the increased employment claim is fanciful but then the truth that "we're trying to raise some money and I thought I'd give this a go to see if it works" probably wouldn't play to well.