What scares the West most about the unrest is the lack of control they have

In Washington and London, those in power are watching events across the Middle East with fear and uncertainty.

For the first time people across the region – most of them young – are fighting to force change and reform. David Cameron and Barack Obama have spoken of the need for democracy to prevail and for the will of the people in Tunisia, Egypt and Libya to be respected.

But beneath the platitudes there is a fear of what lies ahead. What scares the West is the lack of control they have.

Historically they have been accustomed to having a much more hands on role. The truth is that Britain and the United States are no friends of democracy in the Middle East.

Since the end of the First World War they have proactively plotted and schemed to kill democracy in its cradle by supporting despots and dictators and overthrowing democratically elected governments. The Sykes-Picot agreement – which divided up the Middle East into areas of British and French influence – was the start of a worrying precedent.

Saddam Hussein (Iraq), Hosni Mubarak (Egypt) and Zia ul-Haq (Pakistan) are just a few of the leaders who have enjoyed the support and/or patronage of Britain and the US in the 20^th century.

In 1952 they conspired to overthrow the Iranian Prime Minister Mohammed Musaddiq. The British knew his government was democratically elected by the people of Iran, but oil interests took precedence. Once he implemented a bill nationalising the Anglo-Iranian Oil Company (BP as it is now known) his fate was sealed.

The argument often trotted out was that only strong leaders like Hussein and Mubarak could keep control of their countries and maintain stability. Now they themselves are a cause for instability.

There is the potential for the people in the Middle East to choose their own leaders whose policies might not be in the West’s best interests.  This fear is already beginning to manifest itself in the warnings about the Muslim Brotherhood coming to power in Egypt. How they react to this challenge to their hegemony is one of the many unanswered questions.

In a speech in Kuwait this week, Prime Minister David Cameron stated the obvious about Britain’s policy in the Middle East: “For decades, some have argued that stability required highly controlling regimes, and that reform and openness would put that stability at risk,” he said.

“Countries like Britain faced a choice between our interests and our values. And to be honest, we should acknowledge that sometimes we have made such calculations in the past.”

The received wisdom, rooted in the arrogance of empire and alluded to by Cameron in his speech, was that the people of the Middle East were unsuited for democracy – the ‘Arab exception’.

In Tunisia, Egypt, Libya, Algeria, Yemen, Bahrain the people are displaying a ravenous appetite for democracy.

The West might not like it, but it seems there is little they can do about it.

The departure of Andy Coulson will raise questions about David Cameron's judgement

The thinking behind the timing of Andy Coulson’s decision to resign as Downing Street Director of Communications was politics at its most calculating.

He had made his mind up two days ago. Today seemed like a good day to bury the bad news.

The torrent of speculation surrounding Alan Johnson’s departure from his position as Shadow Chancellor was still swirling. The latest rumours suggest that Johnson’s wife was having an affair with his police protection officer.

And of course a certain tanned ex-Prime Minister was back in town, giving evidence to the Chilcot Inquiry into the Iraq War for a second time.

Clearly David Cameron and his circle thought that these two events would take the sting out of the news. Tony Blair discussing the decision to invade Iraq would be the story.

Wrong.

As soon as Coulson’s departure was announced, the BBC and Sky News broke away from their Chilcot coverage, and you could almost smell the burnt shoe leather as political hacks beat a hasty retreat back to Downing Street.

Coulson said he had ‘had enough’. Maybe Cameron had as well. When your spokesman becomes the story something has to done. As Coulson himself said: “When the spokesman needs a spokesman, it’s time to move on.”

But everyone will not just ‘move on’. This raises questions about David Cameron’s judgement in hiring Coulson in the first place. The prime minister knew about the phone hacking allegations when he appointed him. He knew questions would follow.

David Cameron could have taken this decision a long time ago, or indeed not appointed Coulson in the first place. He did not have to be punished for the same offence twice.

It must be remembered that Coulson has not been found guilty of any crime, but the activities of the News of the World’s Royal Editor Clive Goodman happened on his watch. Many find it hard to believe he could not have known something like that was going on.

There are whispers that the paper’s news editor Ian Edmondson was set to implicate him in the scandal.

Perhaps the Coalition thought they could pre-empt such a revelation. The risk has backfired.

Andy Coulson will continue being the story for some time yet.

The warning from the US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton in a BBC interview was surprisingly blunt, in a diplomatic sense anyway.

Washington is ‘worried’ about the upcoming cuts to the £37bn defence budget.

The alliance with Nato – the most successful defensive alliance in the history of the world she grandly proclaimed– must be maintained. If Mrs Clinton is willing to voice her concerns so publicly, one wonders what she is saying behind closed doors.

When the details of the Comprehensive Spending Review are announced on Wednesday, defence will bear some of the pain we have been softened up for.

William Hague has attempted assuage US fears, by saying the United Kingdom will ‘remain a military power of the first rank’, but there will be frayed nerves in Washington over the weekend and for a long time to come.

The cuts are coming: defence is not ring-fenced so savings will have to be made. The worry is that the cuts will fundamentally alter Britain’s role on the world stage.

But what is Britain’s role on the world stage? It is a simple question worth asking when assessing whether the defence cuts are a rational course of action, or an ill-guided exercise that will have disastrous consequences.

It has been 12 years since the last defence review, and the world has changed irrevocably since then. Indeed, in a globalised world the pace of change has quickened markedly.

Greater cooperation is needed among European nations because the balance of power has shifted. That does not mean it will happen.

Mr Cameron will be all too aware that measures such as combining weapons systems and working together on procurement projects would have some on the right of his party foaming at the mouth with indignation.

Amidst the proclamations from both sides, it is difficult to know which side of the argument to come down in favour of.

The ‘leaked’ letter from the Defence Secretary Liam Fox attempted to tip the scales towards the latter. Defence chiefs and those with a military background will of course fight their corner. Turkeys wouldn’t vote for Christmas.

It is hard to get an independent appraisal of what should be done.

The National Audit Office made such a contribution today when it revealed Labour had basically written a cheque it couldn’t cash by coming up with unrealistic budgets and slowing down projects. Things as they are cannot continue.

Clinton’s remarks carry weight and should be given a respectful hearing. After all, Britain and the United States have particularly close ties and are both fighting in Afghanistan.

But Prime Minister David Cameron should cut out the background noise, mull it all over and then do what he thinks is right.

One of his predecessors, Tony Blair, admitted that when he first came into office he tried to please all of the people all of the time. By the end he simply did what he thought was right. Mr Cameron should follow his instincts. You cannot please everybody in politics.

“Fairness” is the poltical buzzword of the moment.

The coalition claims it is ‘fair’ that the better off share some of the burden by having their child benefits payments cut. The coalition is keen to ensure that any changes to university funding are ‘fair’. Ian Duncan Smith, the Work and Pensions Secretary, says his reforms to the welfare system fit a similar criteria.

Today the Deputy Prime Minister Nick Clegg outlined the government’s plan for a ‘pupil premium’, which aims to help the poorest children from primary school through to university. A total of £7 billion will be spent over four years, including an offer of 15 hours of pre-school education for two-year-olds from the poorest 20 per cent of families.

This will ensure the poorest in society will not be disadvantaged by the ‘shadow of the deficit’ he said.

While such an ambition is admirable and should be commended, the bare truth is that a great deal of uncertainty surrounds the impending spending cuts and the programme to reduce the deficit.

We know the pain is coming, whether it is a flesh wound or something much more fatal remains to be seen.

Following the furore surrounding the child benefit cut last week – announced rather haphazardly by the chancellor George Osborne on breakfast television – the coalition is aiming to reframe the debate and recalibrate the news agenda.

Clegg’s ‘fairness’ speech should be seen firmly in this context. We will have to wait until next week for all of the details. But the basic message the coalition wants to get out before then is that ‘fairness’ is an integral part of their programme.

As the country approaches the Comprehensive Spending Review next week, David Cameron wants to ensure that his government is not defined solely by cuts.

The deficit is an issue in British politics, not the issue. Clegg’s reference to the “shadow of the deficit” could so easily be applied in this context.

Such a development would give the new Labour leader Ed Miliband a clear and easy dividing line with his opponent.

Despite his pledge to not oppose every cut the coalition makes and be a responsible opposition, Miliband may find the temptation to score a few easy political points hard to resist.

These are confusing times for British politics.

At Prime Minister’s Questions on Wednesday Mr Miliband found himself in a curious position for a Labour leader: defending the middle class. The first coalition government for 70 years is about to embark on a deficit reduction unparalleled in contemporary politics.

Predicting what will happen with any degree of certainty is pure folly.

The risk is that the British economy will deteriorate and fall into a double-dip recession.

The Secretary of State for Energy and Climate Change Chris Huhne intimated last week that if this happens the cuts could be scaled back. They are not ‘lashed to the mast’. A lack of dogma on an issue as important as this is wise.

‘We have to walk the hard road together’ is the coalition’s message. Next week we will begin to find out just how hard that journey will be.

Above is a layout I produced using InDesign in the style of Four Four Two during my second year of university.

I conducted the interviews and wrote the article.

Allegations of bullying have shifted the focus onto Gordon Brown

This is an opinion piece I wrote for an online news day on 24/02/10.

Gordon Brown has every reason to be lobbing objects around Downing Street right now.

The political agenda is being dominated by questions about his character, and they are not the rather cushy ones put to him by Piers Morgan on ITV a couple of Sundays ago.

He has been accused of, among other things, turfing a secretary out of her seat, grabbing an aide by the lapels and punching a car seat. The story gained extra traction when the National Bullying Helpline revealed it had received calls from staff at Downing Street.

The fact is that before this furore erupted, Labour was experiencing a welcome upturn in fortunes. The Conservatives, for so long presumed to be the government in waiting were, to put it bluntly, slipping.

A poll in the Guardian on Tuesday underlined this.

With less than four months to go until a General Election, the Tory lead is now only seven points (37% compared to Labour’s 30%). If this was repeated at a General Election there would be a hung parliament. Back in October a similar poll showed the party’s share of the vote to be 45%.

Gaffe after gaffe has been made by their normally-slick party machine.

First came Tory confusion over plans tax breaks for married couples, then a slip-up on how fast they would cut the country’s ballooning budget deficit. Now there won’t be swingeing cuts in the first year of a Conservative government according to Cameron, which rather goes against what he has been saying for the past year.

The almighty row over care for the elderly hardly worked in their favour either after a number of care groups and charities came out in favour of the government’s so called ‘death tax’.

The revelation that Brown has a bit of a temper is hardly earth shattering, but the prime minister’s character matters. Journalism’s role is to scrutinise the powerful, and Andrew Rawnsley’s book The End of the Party – the source of the current storm – is a welcome contribution to the pre-election debate.

Writing in the new-look Observer on Sunday, Rawnsley explained the reasons for publishing his book now: “It clearly matters how a leader works – or cannot work – with his colleagues; whether he responds to crises and setbacks calmly or in a hysterical fashion; and how he treats his staff.”

“I anticipate that there will be some who will say that it is somehow inappropriate to publish this book so close to the moment when the country will decide on its next government at a general election.

“On the contrary, there is surely no more appropriate time to assess New Labour’s record in office and portray the men who have wielded that power as they truly are. It’s not in my job description to serve the interests of any political party. I have been fiercely critical of the Tories and will continue to be so when they deserve it.

“It is a journalist’s duty to both himself and to his readers to be unflinchingly truthful about the flaws of the powerful.”

The flaws of Brown are currently in the spotlight, which gives Cameron the chance to get his party’s campaign back on track.

When the dust settles David Cameron should face similar scrutiny as well. He is still widely expected to be the next prime minister of this country, and voters need all the information they can before commit to a Conservative government.

Saturday's protest is seen by the group I shadowed as the 'calm before the storm'

“Democracy has failed us on every level. The system in place is there to fail. It’s time to get rid of democracy and bring out anarchy in the UK.”

These are the words of a small but committed minority that want to use direct action to voice their anger on Wednesday, a day dubbed ‘Financial Fools Day’ by the G20 Meltdown group. The group aims to host a ‘carnival party’ at the Bank of England and overthrow capitalism.

All of this will be going on as leaders from across the world convene in the capital to discuss how to deal with the global recession.

“The best way to tackle things is through direct action,” said Peter Johnson (not his real name) one of the members of the group I met up with before the march on Saturday.

They are attending the Put People First rally, a large-scale demonstration of around 35,000 people organised by a whole myriad of different groups to voice their discontent at everything from capitalism to climate change.

But the group I shadow are far from impressed with what they see. As we walk into Speakers Corner in Hyde Park and survey the scene around us, Dave Campbell, another member of the group, says rather bluntly: “Thank f*** I didn’t wake up early for this.” All of the group agree that the march lacked what they call a ‘backbone or purpose’.

It is clear they feel that Wednesday’s series of protests, which have police on high alert for potential violence, will be the real day of action. Campbell describes Saturday’s events as the ‘calm before the storm’.

Afterwards, over drinks at a pub close to the scene of the march, we discuss why they are protesting and the impact they hope to make.

Police estimates put the number that marched at 35,000

Johnson says: “Democracy is dying. The power was taken from the people a long time ago. This is a chance to remind people that there is a chance to make a difference.” He thinks Wednesday will be a turning point, a chance for people to get their voices back.

He takes a sip from his pint before continuing: “We’re all equal on this earth and people need to realise that they have the right and the power to challenge anything that they don’t think its right.”

They all reject the idea that resorting to violence will undermine what they’re seeking to achieve. Time and again they stress that they feel that direct action is their last resort. These are very committed, and very angry people. On the surface they appear calm and collected, but their determination and anger bubbles up to the surface when they speak.

“Some of the big companies are so out of touch that this is the only backlash possible now. There is no democracy in the way the operate at all, so this is the only way people think they can make an impact on the radar,” Neil Witherow says.

Johnson adds: “People have lost their voice, this is the only way to get their voice back.”

Democracy is dying. The power was taken from the people a long time ago. This is a chance to remind people that there is a chance to make a difference

The internet has been an invaluable tool in getting this revolutionary message across. Key details about Wednesday’s events have been kept under wraps as a result of police surveillance, but the foot soldiers have arranged meeting points and times have via the internet.

Social networking sites such as Twitter and Facebook have been utilised by the groups to spread their ideas to as many people as possible and to try to get a high turnout for Wednesday’s day of action.

“Using these free forms of communication is an amazing way of bring more people into your way of thinking and spread the message,” says Johnson.

They also talk about the tactics they will use on Wednesday. Four groups will meet at four different tube stations across London and then march to the Bank of England under four different Horsemen of the Apocalypse. Campbell describes it as a game of ‘cat and mouse’.

Johnson expands: “It’s about splitting up but still holding that power in your individual group, and then you can break the police line. It’s easier for police to maintain one core group, the more you split up and retain the power of the individual group, there’s no way of them stopping it. The police line is only as strong as its weakest link.”

As the sun begins to set over the City of London and the bitter evening chill intensifies, the thoughts of the group turn to the main event.

Johnson asserts, rather optimistically, that ‘If one person in the country sees what happens, reads up about it…and is turned round to a different way of thinking’ the protest will have been a success. “It’s about opening people’s eyes to what the real issues are.”

Campbell continues along that theme, saying: “The more people who open their eyes, the bigger the revolution can get. The police will win but a show of force is needed.”

“I hope it inspires some sort of rethink and holds big corporations to account,” adds Witherow.

Peter takes a drag from his cigarette, stubs it out in the ashtray and delivers this final salvo:

“Wednesday is about making people accountable for their actions. This will show them that there are a group of people out there that disagree with the way they’re running things and are willing to make a f***ing difference, willing to challenge them, willing to hold them accountable for the way they’re running things because we don’t agree with it and we’re going to show you that we don’t agree with it.”

Reckless says Britain's obligation to contribute to a bailout should be challenged

Britain should not contribute to a bailout of Portugal, according to Rochester and Strood MP Mark Reckless.

Any financial aid would be strongly opposed by Conservative MPs, he told the Centre for Journalism.

Reports suggest it is a question of when, not if Portugal requires a bailout.

A figure of 70 billion euros (£60 billion) has been quoted as the likely figure of any assistance.

The Portuguese parliament rejected a set of austerity measures on Wednesday, prompting the resignation of Socialist prime minister Jose Socrates.

The Open Europe think tank has estimated that Britain could contribute as much as £3.2 billion to a bailout.

“I don’t think we should get involved and our tax payers, who are hard pressed enough as it is, shouldn’t be subsiding that,” Reckless said.

“Unfortunately we signed up for a 60bn euros package that is being used to bailout eurozone countries. There is 40bn euros or so left and supposedly we could be on the hook for that for Portugal or Spain.

“I think we should challenge that legally and I don’t think we should pay that money over.”

For a start I’ve managed to get a job at the Medway Messenger as a trainee reporter. I will start when I finish my university degree.

I know how lucky I am to get a job at the first attempt and I can’t wait to start working on a fantastic news patch.

I am also doing a bit of media work for the Medway Citizens Advice Bureau which deals with a number of issues in the Medway Towns.

At the moment the majority of my time is being taken up by my final year project – a radio documentary on Somerset and its elderly population which could very well make or break my final degree mark. I will post a link to the finished version when it’s all done.

My shorthand is up to 90wpm and I need to up it to 100 to get my NCTJ qualification.

I have started ‘playing’ the guitar, although I’m no Slash just yet.

My ’97 Renault Clio finally bit the dust in December – and gave me burns on my right arm in the process. Now I have got a Ford Escort which is in pretty good shape considering it is 10 years old.

Chelsea continue to blow hot and cold in what has been a frustrating season.

I’m still dreaming of ending the campaign with a Champions League final at Wembley, which is when I will be leaving uni after an enjoyable three years.

Delivering the third Bob Friend Memorial Lecture at the University of Kent on Friday night, Snow said events in the Middle East demonstrate the benefits of social media websites but also that newspapers are becoming dated very quickly.Leaders in Tunisia and Egypt have been forced from power after mass protests driven by services like Twitter and Facebook.

Snow said: “I don’t think people will look to newspapers for news. I don’t think people are patient enough to read news in that way.”

Before his lecture, titled ‘From film to Twitter – the media revolution: is the golden age of journalism come or gone?’, Snow presented this year’s winner of the Bob Friend Memorial Scholarship, Tania Steere, with her award.

Tania will spend a month working at Sky News in the summer and will have her first year tuition fees paid by the broadcaster.

In his lecture Snow argued journalism is entering a new ‘golden age’ but there were risks associated with it.

“There’s never been a better time to become a journalist,” he said.

“When I started in television we were using film, there was no video. The only video was two inches wide and needed two people to load it onto the machine. You then had three hours while it went through the chemical process. You had breathing space to do a job.

“Now it’s instant – news channels could now be dubbed ‘never old for long’. All this information needs mediating.

“We need people we can trust to interpret what’s actually going on. We now live in an absolute maze of different pieces of information. People are putting up misinformation. Who those people are it is difficult to know.”

The scholarship is a partnership between the University, Sky News and the Friend family. It is a memorial to the life of Bob Friend, one of the original presenters of Sky News, who started his career in Kent.

Previous speakers include the Director General of the BBC Mark Thompson (2010) and the head of Sky News John Ryley (2009).