As you’ve probably noticed, the Michaelmas edition has yet to appear in physical form in Cambridge – we’re having some financial difficulties again, which will hopefully be sorted out later in term and you’ll get a chance to see The Berry in all its newspapery glory again. If not, all the selected articles for it have been posted in the appropriate sections on this site, so please do read them and start some discussion. If you’d like to see what the paper will look like, a downloadable PDF of the edition will be posted shortly. Just ignore the placeholder text in the editorial (we’re saving writing that until we know when we’re printing) and the couple of blank spaces where adverts (hopefully) will be.

And that’s about it – we’ll be looking for new people to join the team later this term, including new editors, so stay alert and please do email editor@theberry.org.uk to ask us any questions, or express an interest in getting involved.

[Camilla Schickova]
Frontline sources report worrying circumstances in small-town British outposts of Helmand Province. Troops are dispatched to extremely remote areas with ration packs that are meant to last up to six months; the harsh Afghan terrain ensures that outposts are completely cut off and the British Army is not able to supply our soldiers with water – they have to buy their own. Within the NATO-allocated British provinces, winning over hearts and minds can only be achieved by increasing security with more boots on the ground. But this is proving tricky with too few British troops, so US forces have moved in to help.

Constantly a strategic buffer in the path of conflict, Afghanistan has been progressively shattered through the Anglo-Russian race for central Asian dominance, three Anglo-Afghan conflicts, civil war, Soviet invasion and now NATO and U.S. intervention. Now in 2008, having “won” in Iraq, we are returning our attention to “re-win” in Afghanistan. The US are increasing troops to recapture Afghan territory (which we appear to have misplaced during focus on Iraq) from highly experienced mountain tribesmen who not only have innate mountain-terrain expertise that was the undoing of past British and Russian invasions, but who also – seven years on – have improved weaponry, greater terrorist funding and an inflamed surplus of allied fighters.

Taliban fighters are anything from the “ten dollar” Afghan – the untrained local guy paid his daily bread to kill an ISAF (International Security Assistance Force) soldier – up to the Chechnyans, Pakistanis, Iranians, Iraqis, even western Chinese, most of whom are highly trained in Pakistan then sent across to the southern region of Garmsir in British-controlled Helmand province. British forces in southern outposts buckle down and shoot as new Taliban and Al’Qaeda recruits flood in from across the border to receive their first bloody fighting experiences. Survivors then work their way up to northern provinces, training and fighting as they go.

Troops an¬d villagers are constantly on edge, living in fear of increased suicide bombings. The Taliban have now realised they cannot fight conventional face-to-face warfare and are relying on IED (Improvised Explosive Device) technology passed on from Al-Qaeda supporters in Iraq, and bomb-makers in Iran; local Afghan’s wouldn’t have a clue how to build these, they’re all coming from the outside. It is clear, seven years on, that this war is not only Afghanistan’s to fight. The overarching War on Terror has clearly fuelled further aggression and helped transform Al-Qaeda from an idea into a reality.

Perhaps the most distressing consequence of starving the Afghan war long-term of military resources alongside centre-stage Iraq, is that distraught Afghan civilians have now reverted back to tolerating the Taliban. This is hardly surprising when the only alternative is a weak government with little control over a corrupt police force. The Afghan police work for whichever side gives them more money. They tax the locals, and are often under the financial (and literal) influence of drugs – one of the main illegal sources funding fighting activities. With no established law worth respecting, civilians are scared of both foreigners and insurgents alike. Civilians don’t want to appear friendly with Western troops for fear of Taliban punishment. Thus local loyalties are clearly torn – those who edge towards the beacon of “enduring freedom” risk everything.

Enforced foreign security is trying to solidify what is otherwise – from a nomadic viewpoint – a blurred border between Pakistan and Afghanistan. But Afghans live in tribes, villages, provinces, not in a globally contextualised “Afghanistan”. American forces will infiltrate village gatherings and negotiate with tribal chiefs, establishing their local problems, how they can help – winning over hearts and minds. They can afford to give village elders up to twenty thousand dollars without justification; the US budget allows for greater security efforts, but long term stability seems undermined when bribery is involved.

It’s easy to say we’ve “won” but at what price? In a war torn country with little infrastructure, money has little value to locals unsure of who is watching and whom to trust. Where there is war there are sides to be taken, it’s everyman for himself.

The British do not have the same financial luxury as the U.S., but there is united emphasis on ISAF and U.S. forces in training and then serving alongside local Afghan police and military forces. NATO-led ISAF continue with their main prerogative in upholding security for the creation of a stable Afghan state with a legitimate government. This is a boots-on-the-ground effort covering all localities, building local institutions such as schools, and giving a positive public profile so as to reassure villagers that there is an alternative security to the Taliban.

But whispers of another thirty-year Northern Ireland are drifting through British troops. Recently the Taliban declared that they will continue fighting for another twenty years if they have to. Have our troops been told about the history of warfare in Afghanistan, how it was once the forgotten frontline of WWII? How we couldn’t beat the notorious “Talibs” nor capture the Faqir of Ipi, a foreshadow of Osama, because of the unbeatable mountains? The terrain hasn’t changed, and the Talibs have more friends than ever. What makes us so sure we can beat them now?

[Carly Hilts]

Billed as ‘Mrs Clean’ in Israel, Livni could be a break with the past, the first female prime minister since the 1970s in a political environment dominated by older military men, many of whom have been linked to allegations of corruption or bribery. Even her predecessor, Ehud Olmert, stood down after multiple corruption investigations.

The question is whether Livni will be able to maintain a strong government. Her party currently holds 29 seats; for a majority she needs 61. Livni has been given six weeks to form a coalition with other parties. If she fails, general elections will be called next year.

Forming a stable coalition will not be an easy task; polls show that several parties- including Likud, the third largest with 12 seats- would benefit from early elections, so Livni will have her work cut out to persuade them to co-operate. Political deals will have to be made, and it is not yet clear how far she will compromise her principles. The fact that she is forced to work quickly by this 42-day limit will not help matters.

Does this mean that Livni cannot be an effective premier for Israel? Perhaps, but past prime ministers have faced similar problems. A greater issue for Livni is the question of authority; she only won the leadership contest by 1.1% of the vote, with 431 votes between her and Transport Minister Shaul Mofaz. Is this limited mandate a decisive enough victory to inspire her own party or to encourage other leaders to deal with her?

Some have highlighted her relatively short parliamentary career to suggest that Livni lacks the experience required of a political leader. Elected as an MP for the right-wing Likud party in 1999, she was made Minister for Regional Development in 2001 and went on to hold positions in Immigrant Absorption, Housing and Construction, Justice, and Foreign Affairs. A protégé of former leader Ariel Sharon, she moved with him when he formed Kadima in 2005. Critics claim that Livni is inexperienced regarding national security- an issue considered important in Israel in light of the ongoing controversy with Palestine and the burgeoning nuclear threat of Iran.

However, it is unfair to say that Livni has no relevant experience at all. In 2005 she helped broker Sharon’s controversial withdrawal of Israeli troops and settlers from the Gaza Strip, and was Foreign Minister throughout the Israel-Lebanon war of 2006, where she played a key role in negotiating UN resolution 1701 which ended the 34-day conflict. Moreover, since November 2007 she has led a team in talks with the Palestinian Authority, aiming to reach an agreement by 2009.

This brings us to one of the key questions about Livni’s premiership: is Livni likely to bring peace between Israel and Palestine? She is certainly a new kind of leader, a change from the succession of military-minded men that have preceded her, and the fact that she was chosen (however narrowly) over her nearest rival, a retired general, for the leadership, might suggest that Israel feels ready for a different approach.

But how far does Livni represent this new direction? She comes from a strongly Zionist nationalist background, born into a family that believed in a Jewish state including Gaza, the West Bank and an undivided Jerusalem. However, as Foreign Minister she strongly supported the current talks with Palestine, and there is nothing to suggest that she would not continue to do so as Prime Minister; she is even said to be ready to give up territory and to move Jewish settlers. If she truly wants to make a deal with Palestine, however, realistically there will have to be some sharing of Jerusalem. We shall have to see just how far she is willing to compromise for peace.

So are we on the brink of a new start for Israel and Palestine? It is hard to tell. On one level, change does not appear to be imminent. Expansion of settlements on the West Bank- illegal under international law- has continued, while Israel hasn’t removed any ‘outposts’- which are illegal under its own laws- since 2006.

Furthermore, given the precariousness of Livni’s government, even if she were able to broker some agreement with Palestine, there is no guarantee that she could sign it and remain Prime Minister long enough to deliver on it. But let’s not be too pessimistic. This represents the chance for a radical rethink on how to approach the problems facing the Middle East. A fresh mind, a new pair of eyes, a break with tradition. That could be exactly what this troubled part of the world needs.

[Robyn Drury]

Indeed, in recent weeks we have been treated to the school-run exploits of David Miliband, as lovingly outlined in a four-page spread in The Mirror. The interview, along with a second in The Times Weekend supplement, was accompanied by photographs of Miliband in ‘off-duty’ apparel, at home and with his family. Clearly, and perhaps understandably, he was using such tactics (seen so often in the pages of Hello! Magazine with a very different kind of celebrity in front of the lens) to boost the flagging popularity of his party: oh look, he’s a family man! How wholesome! The question is, however, whether the private lives of politicians should play such a public role in the political sphere. Really, do we even care?

It has to be said that these tactics have worked brilliantly for the other Dave in British politics – Conservative leader David Cameron. Ever since his successful leadership campaign, he has racked up an impressive amount of column inches – and not just for his policies. We’ve seen the pictures of his family holidays, we’ve learnt how he met his wife, how he raises his children. We have even seen his kitchen: you probably know more about him than you do some of your acquaintances. This is all very well, and I’m sure that “Dave” is a nice guy, but it’s distracting. As a discerning, voting public, it’s not the family life of our politicians that we should be interested in; we should be concerned with party policies, and little else.

The vehement reactions of the public and the media to some of these private matters is not only distracting, but also disconcerting. Take Sarah Palin, John McCain’s Republican running mate. Her decision to bring her family into her campaign, to discuss their “ups and downs”, met with mixed response. On the one hand, Palin “struck a chord” with many disillusioned voters; on the other, she faced hostility which was, frankly, unpleasant. The focus of the liberal media on her teenage daughter’s pregnancy – which is in no way related to Palin’s politics – was demeaning. Her policies may well be highly questionable, but that does not justify the crude character assassinations that her family, and in particular her daughter, have undergone.

Our fascination with celebrity culture now means that, whether or not politicians court the publicity, the press have an all-access pass into their private lives. Even those who retain an air of mystery, such as the French Minister of Justice, Rachida Dati, aren’t immune from this. When Dati, 42 and single, recently announced that she was pregnant, the French press was simply desperate to uncover the details, prompting Dati to note that her “complicated” private life is “not a novel”. Yet still the media chooses to focus their attention on the pregnancy, rather than the Minister of Justice’s extensive prison reforms. It’s an uncomfortable relationship: whilst it might satisfy public curiosity, it exposes politicians to a level of scrutiny that should be reserved for their politics and, indeed, overshadows the real reason why these people are in the public eye.

The truth is, we are curious. We buy the newspapers and the magazines, we watch the television coverage. Whether or not the media propagates this curiosity is another question – but it doesn’t change the obvious interest in the private lives of public figures. As such, we will continue to look through the political keyhole, and the already blurred line between the public and the private domain will continue to diminish. The real test, for the casual observer, will be that of separating our subjective judgements of the politicians from the much more objective ones of their policies. The question of whether the media will make this already-difficult task any more tricky remains unanswered.

The problem is not merely that clubs without prestige, history or fans end up at the top of the tree, but the effect that this purchase will have on the game. Everton chairman Bill Kenwright recently announced that Everton (and thus every club below them) could no longer compete in the Premiership unless a billionaire invested in the club. This will end the Premiership as a meaningful competition for everyone except the Big Five, who will simply jockey for the various European places. Meanwhile everyone else will be aiming to avoid relegation before focusing on winning cups.

Chairmen will have to spend, spend, spend in order to sell tickets and stay on Sky Sports. If you want to know what the result of that will be, ask a Leeds fan. Clubs will be unable to stay on an even financial footing once the super-rich drive up transfer prices and wages. Aston Villa, a club which, unlike Chelsea, Manchester City or Arsenal has actually won the European Cup, has been spending large amounts of money (£9.65m for Ashley Young, £7.8m for Carlos Cuellar), but in a sustainable way. However, this sensible approach will become inimical to success, leaving even the best-supported club in mid-table limbo.

Ultimately the top half of clubs in the Premiership will end up as the playthings of billionaires, while the rest of the league will be taken up by also-rans constantly verging on relegation, administration or both. Arguing that football is a sport, not a business, only ignores these problems. Already Leagues One and Two can be decided pre-season based on which club will have the most points deducted for going into administration. On-pitch action is being over-shadowed by boardroom shenanigans. While Leeds losing 15 points is enjoyable, it’s bad for the sport.

The other downside for anyone who cares about football can be seen at clubs like Chelsea, Newcastle and MK Dons. What makes football the best sport in the world is the connection between the clubs and the community. Liverpudlians care about football because Liverpool Football Club is central to their local identity, unlike, say, Warwickshire County Cricket or Harlequins Rugby, which people might support, but which aren’t part of who they are. Football clubs have given meaning and a sense of belonging to people who feel unwanted and unrepresented in Britain.

Is it any wonder, then that the most vociferous and loyal supporters were from tight-knit but scorned communities, like Irish immigrants in Liverpool and miners in Newcastle? The new breed of billionaire owners will destroy this community spirit and turn the Premiership into something mirroring the National Football League in America, where teams are replaced by ‘franchises’. By callously abandoning Wimbledon’s fans in London to make a quick buck in Milton Keynes, MK Dons have shown us the future. The billionaires clearly could not care less about the interests of the fans and only want to satisfy their own desires to play Championship Manager in the real world. Many of the real Chelsea fans who existed before the Abramovich era have been priced out by rising ticket prices and replaced by the “prawn sandwich brigade”, who, unsurprisingly, fail to turn out in numbers for games against Rosenborg in November. Manchester City fans might be celebrating now, but they won’t be so pleased when they can’t afford to see a UEFA Cup match, let alone buy a season ticket.

Before September 1st, it appeared worryingly possible that English football would end up as a static, dull, money-ruled game detached from the fans and communities that pay for it. After the City takeover, it seemed almost certain. Can football be saved? Luckily, the answer is yes. There are two measures that could be taken by UEFA to prevent football turning into a stage for billionaires to build dream teams. The first is forcing clubs to field a certain number of home-grown players, which would give clubs some connection to their fans and ensure that native players could rise through the ranks instead of being stuck on the bench. Secondly, wages could be capped. Wage inflation is the main reason why several clubs have been forced into administration, and when journeymen like Anton Ferdinand are getting around £50,000 per week it’s clear that valuation is no longer in touch with reality. The main obstacle is that the EU has laws against such labour restrictions. However, it could plausibly be argued that football is an exception because it is neither a business nor part of the free market that the EU seeks to protect. Football fans have a genuine, intelligent ally in the UEFA president, Michel Platini. It only remains to be seen whether he can take the difficult measures required to save football from itself.

Is there something fundamental about the human psyche, or human society, which makes us incapable of planning ahead to prevent disaster on a global scale? Are we just too incompetent, too competitive, too small-minded or too stupid to build a sustainable economy? History proves that we are not.

In the middle of the last century, the entire industrial world was able to pull itself out of deep economic depression to defeat the powerful threat of fascism, then to rebuild a decimated continent in less than two decades. More recently, our economic system has simultaneously expanded productive forces and lifted a billion people in Asia out of serfdom and poverty. Our societies and our economies are capable of truly amazing things. So why do we not face up to a threat that has the potential, in the coming decades, to kill one fifth of the human population?

The problem is capitalism. Sorry, but that’s the inconvenient truth.

Capitalism stipulates that the means of production – the factories, offices, transport systems and communication lines – are owned and controlled by individuals who do not themselves work in industry. Frequently this means that a very small minority of people own the vast majority of wealth and production, but it can mean, as in Britain, that a sizeable minority are small shareholders.

The goal of these owners is to make a profit on their initial investment. If their profit ceases, they sell their assets; and if all profit ceases, assets (that is, the factories, offices and communications which we all rely on) become worthless and the whole system collapses. Capitalism requires constant profit on investments, and the only way such profit can be maintained is through constant growth in production and in consumption.

Yet this ignores the fact that the earth itself is finite. It has finite resources (oil, metals, forests, soil nutrients) and finite space for us to put our waste. Energy use must constantly grow under capitalism, but somehow we need to consume less energy to combat climate change.

Our economic system cannot stop expanding, so can it be made more sustainable? The logic of capitalism makes this extremely unlikely. The operators of industry must compete with each other in order to attract investment: an energy company that seeks to produce wind power (not very profitable) rather than coal power (very profitable) will be pushed out of business if it has to rely on private investors.

Nor will the owners of industry change their ways as the consequences of climate change become increasingly obvious: catastrophe merely provides another opportunity for profit. Large landowners in Thailand, Indonesia and India have used the devastation wrought by the Asian Tsunami as an excuse to throw poor fishermen out of their homes, in order to build huge luxury hotels on stolen land. Business leaders in New Orleans stole land, demolished homes, took away workers’ legal rights, and gave themselves an enormous tax break in the wake of hurricane Katrina. Capitalism will not hesitate to make a fast buck from climate change, and the owners of industry will take every precaution to protect themselves from its disastrous effects. Mansions are already being built in Alaska, which will have a more temperate climate if global warming takes place.

Capitalism is incapable of tackling climate change, but human society is not. Truly democratic structures have already proved that they can act with an environmental conscience. A committee of workers at the arms company Lucas Aerospace produced plans in the 1970s to switch production at their factory from weapons to hydrogen fuel cells and integrated public transport systems. Workers at Vickers, another arms company, in the same decade designed a hydro-electric barrier across the river Severn, which could produce a substantial fraction of Britain’s energy. Builders’ unions in Australia have saved hundreds of parks and green spaces from being bulldozed and built on. Ordinary working people have the power to change the world through their labour, as long as they are not forced into constant expansion and irresponsibility by the capitalist system.

Al Gore, after releasing his popular film on climate change, called on young people everywhere to lie in front of bulldozers to prevent any more coal-fired power stations from being built. Hundreds of people heeded this call at the Climate Camp in Kent this summer, but there were not enough of them. The world will only change for the better, and our society will only become sustainable, when the people driving the bulldozers come to realise how much power they have, and turn their demolition machines on the economic system that threatens to destroy the earth.

Most investment banks are owned by dispersed shareholders, and their shares are traded on the stock market. Management is divorced from ownership, with the result that the shareholders can exert little
control over fund managers. This separation of ownership from control means that traders are free to gamble with other people’s money. In a growing economy, everyone does well on average and traders enjoy large bonuses. But if investments turn out to be bad, traders face almost no sanction. It is not their money that is lost; the most a trader loses is his job. This leads to excessive risk taking.

Three of the big five Wall Street investment banks have gone under. Yet hedge funds, which before the crisis were thought to be much riskier, have not been hit nearly as hard. This shows that the problem is not with markets, but with the structure of investment banks.

Hedge funds are privately owned, often as partnerships. Fund managers usually invest their own money as well as others’, so they have incentives not to take huge risks. The small size of hedge funds
allows managers to assess fund manager performance more closely. It also means that if bad decisions are made, they cannot have such large effects. If a hedge fund goes bust, the effect on the economy is less significant.

Big banks are therefore looking at changing their business structures. UBS is considering splitting its asset-management and investment banking businesses.

The second, bigger problem is government intervention in the lending market. A simple example is legislation in America which discourages lenders from denying mortgage applications from fear of being accused of racism. The Community Reinvestment Act has coerced lenders into allowing riskier mortgages, ultimately leading to more repossessions when borrowers couldn’t make their repayments.

But the central banking system is a more systemic problem. Governments keep the interest rate artificially low by lending money at a lower rate than the going market rate. A small player wouldn’t have much effect, but because governments can print money, they exert a large enough influence on the market to change the interest rate. After years of inflating the money supply, most of the pounds and dollars in circulation are lent by the central banks. As well as being the cause of inflation, this allows investments in riskier activities which wouldn’t be allocated resources by a free market. It creates bubbles or inflates certain markets, such as the housing market.

The debt bubble that has been built up over the last decade or so is the real cause of the current economic crisis, and central banks are to blame. They provided the cheap money which underpinned the growth of debt. The so-called “Greenspan put” refers to twenty years of US Federal Reserve policy to cut government interest rates aggressively every time drops in market confidence threatened the long economic boom. The 1987 stock market crash; the Gulf War; the Mexican crisis; the Asian crisis; the Long Term Capital Management hedge fund debacle; Y2K; the internet bubble burst; 9/11; and now: every time, US rates were slashed. Often, US government interest rates were actually lower than the inflation rate: real interest rates were negative. That is really cheap money.

Investors in the UK and US increasingly believe that when things go bad, the government will inject liquidity until the problem gets better. Governments do so every time, and the perception has become
firmly embedded in asset pricing in the form of higher valuation, narrower credit spreads, and excess risk taking. The end result has been moral hazard in risk taking and has caused bubbles in equities,
credit, real estate, and commodities.

The knowledge that the government will bail out any business distorts the market: it encourages rash decisions in the short term, and in the long term stupefies the market from adjusting to changes in demand and technology. Ultimately, “capital injections” do not prevent credit crunches. They exacerbate business cycles and make the crunches bigger when they inevitably do come.

Bad ownership structures are not a long term problem. As long as their shareholders are not bailed out, banks will fix themselves. But government intervention is a long term problem. Central banks should be abolished. Government should not interfere with the market interest rate. The only way to long-term economic health is to trust the markets.

Tuesday 23rd September began like any other day in Ireland: cold. But as I headed to Stormont with an MLA (Assembly Member) from a neighbouring constituency, the sun came out, the weather warmed up and I was filled with optimism. I was there to see how the Assembly functioned, but after I shook hands for the twentieth time and was introduced to yet another whiskered MLA as a Politics student, my diplomatic chaperon announced, “He wants to see how politics doesn’t work.”

As I viewed the Democratic Unionist Party (DUP) and Sinn Féin members hissing and jeering at each other in the near-empty bearpit that is the Assembly chamber, I was reminded of David Cameron’s personal gibes during PM’s Question Time. This political point-scoring, though, was more sectarian in character.

Gregory Campbell, Minister for Culture, Arts and Leisure, was attacked by the committee chairperson, Barry McElduff, for his delay in forwarding legislation to promote minority languages such as Irish and Ulster Scots. Mr Campbell bounced back with a sardonic response pointing out that it was Mr McElduff’s party, Sinn Féin, that was delaying the work of the executive.

The Executive has not even met since June, while the Scottish Cabinet has met at least nine times in the same period. Bitter disagreements and infrequent meetings can be explained by the nature of the NI executive.

Ministerial positions are allocated so that the four main parties are represented in a power-sharing government, forcing the diametrically opposed DUP and Sinn Féin to work together as truculent bedfellows. Currently, they can find no common ground over the devolution of policing and justice powers.

When Ian Paisley, then leader of the DUP, finally agreed to a power-sharing government with Sinn Féin, he lasted only a year before stepping down as First Minister. Paisley’s successor, Peter Robinson, was dismayed by Brown’s suggestion that a date for devolution of justice powers be set, and consequently snubbed the Labour conference, while accepting an invitation from its Conservative counterpart. Instead, junior minister Jeffrey Donaldson represented the DUP’s views in Manchester, stating that the party has “consistently said we will not agree to a set timeframe, timetable or deadline for policing and justice.”
Unlike Sinn Féin, which wants to end British involvement in the running of the police and courts, the main unionist party argues that policing is just not relevant at a time of global economic meltdown, when other issues should take priority.
The leader of the non-sectarian Alliance party, David Ford, opines that the Executive is not ready to take on “such a sensitive issue” as policing and justice. He fears that if the executive does not meet to focus on imminent issues such as fuel shortages and water rates, paramilitary dissidents will exploit the political vacuum and “Sinn Féin and the DUP will push Northern Ireland once again towards the abyss.”
The Secretary of State for Northern Ireland was correct in his diagnosis of a “tense period”, but to say we are teetering on the edge of a bottomless chasm would be a tad dramatic. There is no sword of Damocles dangling over Northern Ireland. Things at Stormont are…a little more mundane.

When I was roasting in the extremely hot BBC studio during a broadcast of Stormont Live, the political correspondent Martina Purdy pointed at me and said with her Canadian twang, “Our audience is falling asleep!” Although I blamed the heat, it has to be said that there was little at Stormont compelling enough to keep me awake.

It was in the afternoon that my eyes were opened. I sat in on a meeting of the All Party Assembly Group on Autism, and watched as politicians from the different parties sat around a table, listening to experts on educating and developing the needs of autistic children. What struck me was the informality of the meeting: phones rang, doors opened and closed, and the politicians drank tea and ate triangular sandwiches. They were putting politics aside to deal with real and pressing affairs.

So despite the wrangling of the Assembly, the sectarian jokes and frosty relations between steadfast nationalists and staunch unionists, the peace process is struggling onwards, and a decade after the Good Friday Agreement, Northern Ireland is beginning to look like a democracy. Still, the institutionalised conflict that produces the petty squabbling on Stormont Hill will continue to undermine the progress that is made. Most would agree, however, that the war of words is infinitely better than the war of bullets.

Despite this dedication and loyalty, however, Gurkhas who retired before 1997 are not legally allowed to settle here in the UK. They also receive a lower pension than their British counterparts and are not allowed to work. In July, ex-Gurkha Purna Gurung died of high blood pressure - allegedly from the stress of threats of deportation. On 15th September around 40 Gurkha soldiers and supporters marched from Parliament Square to Downing Street to deliver to the Prime Minister a petition signed by 45,000 people. This coincided with a Judicial Review on their settlement rights which had been rescheduled from July.

The Government claims the Gurkhas “do not have sufficient ties” to settle in the UK, and immigration of any kind is a heated issue, but after 200 years of active service for Britain there is at the very least a case to be made for both sides of this debate.

Those against the campaign for settlement claim that this would form a dangerous reversal in government policy. Recently politicians and the media have been taking a stance against immigration on the premise that it is no longer beneficial to the British economy. To make an exception in the case of the Gurkhas, they argue, would not only make the government seem weak but could also set a precedent and open the litigation floodgates for everyone who believes they have a similar right to residence in the UK due to services rendered.

The other side of the debate, however, has a high profile supporter from the entertainment world – actor Joanna Lumley. Lumley, whose father served with the Gurkhas in World War 2, accuses the British legal system of treating them “shamefully”. She has even threatened to give up her passport and take up citizenship of India, where she was born, if the Gurkhas are not allowed to stay. She argues that it is absurd “that you can be good enough to die for this country but not good enough to live here.” Many agree that the “weak ties” argument is on particularly shaky ground when you consider what these soldiers have given for us over the years. Certainly it could be claimed that many current immigrants to this country have a much weaker “tie” to it than that of someone who was once prepared to die to protect it.

It could also be pointed out that under international law Gurkhas are not mercenaries but fully integrated soldiers of the British army, and as such obey British martial law. If they are subject to the same laws as their fellow soldiers who are British citizens, some say, then they should have the same rights as well.

This may seem like an open-and-shut case to some. If someone has been willing to give their life for this country, surely they should be allowed to settle here? The government’s unwillingness to concede this almost certainly stems from the recent backlash against the unprecedented levels of immigration from Eastern Europe, rather than adherence to any wider political principle. As a result, the plight of the many brave ex-soldiers who have been threatened with deportation still hangs in the balance.

This article is based on a debate hosted by www.debatewise.com

However, this is misleading: the term “rightwing” is loaded with so many contradictory political positions and ideas that it is inaccurate to characterise the party in this way. If anything, the example of the BNP should demonstrate to us that it is time to move on from the old left/right dichotomy in favour of a new means of political division. The privilege we give to labels like left- and rightwing rather than to definitions means that many groups are wrongly classified, and the labels themselves become meaningless and redundant.

Focusing solely on economics, we all know that free markets are a rightwing ideal, while protectionism is of the left. By this definition, the BNP is avowedly leftwing. It adheres to a socialist economic policy of nationalising state industries, full employment for British citizens, and significant wealth redistribution. These are all positions commonly believed to be on the left. And, more interestingly, they all have a nationalistic flavour. Indeed, the nature of free market economics is such that, logically, this economic system is most compatible with internationalism, a political ideology monopolised by the left.

So to what extent is the BNP actually rightwing socially? The intellectual foundations of free market economics is liberty, in the (albeit simplistic) sense that one should be able to do anything as long as it does not cause harm to another person. As such, it is perfectly reasonable to argue that someone who is truly rightwing will be as against social conservatism as anyone who, on such social issues, defines themselves as leftwing.

It is undeniable that the BNP wishes to introduce legislation to discriminate against non-Britons, homosexuals, and, to a lesser extent, women. But, in the same way, it is those who define themselves as leftwing who wish to introduce similar discriminatory laws, even though this discrimination is prefixed with the term “positive”. Regardless of motive, the results of such legislation are the same in both cases: discrimination based on race, sexual orientation, or gender. As such, on social issues, by this principle, it is more accurate to describe the BNP as a party of the left.

Of course, some may argue that the motive behind policy is a significant factor in placing a party along the political spectrum. But, if this were true, and the BNP were placed firmly on the right, it would mean that anyone with political motives non-racist, non-chauvinistic, and non-prudish would have to be leftwing, regardless of policy political views. This would mean that something like libertarianism would have to be put dead centre. This will obviously not do.

This is not an attempt to demonstrate that the BNP is actually leftwing rather than rightwing, but to demonstrate the problem of using such labels. Ultimately, the ideology of the BNP is so exceptional that it has no place on the political spectrum. Nevertheless, the spectrum still deals with a range of rational political positions, as well as those developed on the basis of bigotry alone. This is highly problematic.

After all, why do we include fascism and communism on the same spectrum? They were both collectivist and totalitarian, and yet are labelled as polar opposites. The description of such ideologies as left or right does not tell us anything about the substance of fascism and communism; it merely serves to discredit alternative legitimate political positions like socialism and libertarianism that are described using the same language.

Indeed, by placing ideologies like those expressed by the BNP anywhere on such a spectrum is to do nothing other than to make racism seem to be a legitimate political position. Racism is neither of the left nor of the right: it is just wrong.

Unfortunately, the left/right dichotomy has such a hold over our political discourse that it is almost impossible to abandon it. But abandon it we must. Otherwise, we will remain enslaved to the emptiness of the language employed in the political spectrum. People often now use the term “rightwing” and “leftwing” to define anything other than what they actually mean in terms of rational political choices. It is time for definitions rather than words to reassert themselves.