Why Charles will be a great king.

I have been reading over recent articles over the impending horror of a Carolinian monarchy. If he is to become Charles III, terrible omens are cited: Charles I was be headed and Charles II was a drinker and debaucher (not that that should be an issue?). However there has been speculation that he would use one of his middle names as a regnal name: George in honour of his grandfather and become George VII. What he chooses of course is his choice and he needs not fear history. 

But many have criticised Charles' many incursions into political life because it is conventional for the monarch to stay out of state affairs and leave politics to Parliament- a principle 'established' in 1688. Yet since then, countless monarchs have taken keen interests in government affairs. George II continually pressed the government of the day in the late 1750s for the defence of his homeland of Hanover, George III famously fought tooth and nail for his government to keep on the offensive against the American rebels in the 1770s, Victoria had frequent arguments with Gladstone but loved Disraeli. Even Elizabeth II has attended Cabinet and will surely express her opinions on subjects at her weekly meetings with the Prime Minister. Yet Charles is somehow lambasted by the media for having sensible opinions on climate change, conservation, the unemployed and GM crops! 

Much of this of course still comes from many who are still sore over the tragedy of Princess Diana. The fact is, that was their private business. Thousands of people go through divorce and affairs. Who are we to judge them? Whatever mistakes he made as a younger man, he has certainly atoned for them and is preparing to make a greater introduction into public life, which is inevitable as the Queen ages. 

Charles has evolved into a compassionate man, a man of intelligence, grit and determination. As the Duke of Rothesay, he maintains a prominent position in the armed forces with a special regard to Scotland and also as Duke of Cornwall. His endless efforts to make climate change and conservation a permanent feature of his values is a testament to his beliefs which are admirable and should be respected. This is a free country more than ever, why should the monarchy be excluded from this?

Of course there are those who say that it is undemocratic. Totally, the monarchy is not elected but for an institution that goes back over 2000 years, the Windsors have earned their place. A monarchy still standing in the 21st Century is a mega achievement and it is a testament to the hard work, patriotism and popularity and also accessibility that the royal family has provided. For in times of war, who is it we all rally to? On Christmas Day, who gives a speech? Who heads our Church? Who signs the laws of state? Who heads the armed forces? I'm sure you'll know. 

No elected politician could ever fill their place. Monarchs are not greedy, selfish individuals. They are humans who have beliefs, compassion and often understand far more about reality than most politicians can- and Charles is that person!!

I look positively forward to a Carolinian monarchy whilst looking fondly upon the twilight period of the second Elizabethan age. Of course, Elizabeth II will continue to reign for quite some time yet!

Why our Education System is destroying British values.

I constantly used to hear at school about the 'National Curriculum'. What national curriculum? Successive governments over the years have given away control of education to the local councils, regional assemblies and parliaments and private business. The very concept of a national curriculum would be that all school children would learn and study the same things across the country. 

Let's use an example- it's called Scotland. Now historically, Scotland has always been allowed to maintain a degree of independence in the areas of education but you look at the curriculums at schools, colleges and universities in Scotland and 'British' themes are rarely studied. The Acts of Union with England and the formation of Great Britain are not discussed in history lessons. Instead they get nationalist, SNP drivel about William Wallace, Robert the Bruce and that nasty English king, Edward I. University courses discuss the 'Scottish Enlightenment'. Important as that is- why is not studied in a wider British context? After all, it happened under the Union! English lessons in Scotland and Wales look strictly at Scottish and Welsh writers. Is there any wonder why the United Kingdom is falling apart around us? And the nationalists are on the rise? There are so many examples I could use. Giving away central government control of the education curriculum is destroying the very concept of Britishness and is giving way to false notions of Scottishness, Welshness and of course Englishness.

Secondly, let's look at the rise of Islamic extremism in schools. Again, this is because schools have been given far too much autonomy to run their own affairs. These schools are regulated by that travesty called OFSTED. Schools have been infiltrated by fundamentalists whom teach pupils that Islamic law has primacy over British laws. Again, further eroding our values and even more damaging, preventing integration. Christianity, Hinduism and Judaism are chastised and taught appalling if at all. One school I heard on the news today was claiming their pupils would go to hell if they studied music and dance!! This is absolutely unacceptable but yet becoming more common. What's the government doing about it?

My final point here is the lesson that we all know as 'Citizenship'. That's funny because all I could remember studying was how to get a girl pregnant, flavoured condoms and how I was told it was okay to have sex under age. Sex education in schools has caused enormous damage to society- exemplified by the 'chav' phenomenon in the late 1990s. I remember pupils looking forward to their 'Citizenship' lessons every week. In my opinion, sex and sexuality are things to be explored by oneself. Sex is a journey in discovering yourself as well as others. It should be done in a private/personal capacity. It is most definitely something schools should not be 'teaching'. Again, this comes down to the lack of a curriculum and the autonomy of schools. I'm sure many reading this section will think I'm a prude killjoy but it's a serious issue that I cannot fully explain in a blog post. Although if people want, I can write a much more detailed post on this area.

However in Citizenship we should be teaching children how to exercise their democratic rights. Institutions of the country like the monarchy, Parliament and the Church of England. We should be encouraging public service and charity. British values such as liberty and tolerance. Is there any wonder why political apathy is so high in Britain? And also why women are still under represented in politics? Sixth form college was the first time I got to study politics and it was completely dominated by men. If everyone studies these things earlier then interest would be more likely to develop across the genders. Kids today are rude, arrogant and far less intelligent than our global partners.

"Education, education, education" was the Blair quote and he was absolutely right. Education is the fundamental core of our society and it is failing it in every single way. Don't be surprised if the United Kingdom breaks up in our lifetime. Don't be surprised when more terrorist attacks happen on our streets. Don't be surprised as teenage pregnancies continue to rise. 'Broken Britain'? I couldn't agree more.

Why the House of Lords is a fine institution.

This week, Ed Miliband has said Labour will replace the House of Lords with an 'elected Senate' if they win the general election in May 2015. The left has an obsession with tearing down old Great British institutions like the Lords, the Monarchy, the Church of England. They hate these historical institutions because they see them as symbols of privilege, oppression and discrimination. The facts and even public opinion suggest how wrong they are to tamper. The old cliche of course: 'if it ain't broken, don't fix it'.

The House of Lords of course historically was a forum for the great landed magnates and high clergy of Medieval England and that aspect of its history was of its time and is no longer with us. Most of the hereditary peers were removed in the late 1990s by the New Labour government. Again, they saw these ghastly fox murdering bastards as they like to believe as symbols of everything that was wrong with Britain. In fact many of them were in deep financial difficulty, many were active in charity and barely any had a large degree of influence over government policy. But since the Lords reforms of the Blair era, some just can't help themselves and want to see the whole thing, an institution over 800 years old just cast into the dustbin of history. 

In it's current formation, the House of Lords is primarily made up of 'Life Peers'- those given a seat by governments with approval from Buckingham Palace. Some of them are well knows faces. The recent death of Richard Attenborough was a loss for the Lords, a man hugely involved in charity, promoting Britain abroad and a man committed to a progressive worldview. Andrew Lloyd-Webber and Alan Sugar have both done enormous work for charity and sit in the Lords. The other peers are mostly experts in a particular field. Science, commerce, religion, technology, charity, those who have fought for justice such as Gary Newlove's wife and Stephen Lawrence's mother, poets and linguists also reside there, experts in various fields of law- they are all represented here. It doesn't matter where they come from or their backgrounds, the House of Lords is supposed and often rightly scrutinises the legislation which comes from the House of Commons. The feckless careerists in the Commons should look to their colleagues in the Lords with respect and dignity. 

Another important point is that the public cannot fathom the idea of more elected politicians from private schools who don't understand the real world or real people. The same applies to the idea of an elected head of state. The public have far more admiration for Her Majesty the Queen than any elected politician could ever dream of. She is highly respected on the global stage, herself and her family chair an enormous amount of charities and they bring in far more revenue to the UK than they take. These days, there own personal estates account for much of their revenue and local jobs. 

The House of Lords is a far more dignified institution than the House of Commons is. The debate in the Lords is often non-partisan and intelligent, sensible discussions usually take place there than you will ever see in the Commons. The Commons every Wednesday at 12 observes a spectacle not unseen from a pantomime whereas you don't see that kind of behaviour in the Lords- an elected Senate will create new levels of partisan nonsense and childish screaming and bitching. Of course nothing last forever, but it would truly be a disaster for British democracy, tradition, common sense and respect if the Lords became another victim of the fantasties and crusades of the left.

The Chinese Communist Party's Last Stand?

It is 65 years this very day that the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) seized Beijing (Peking as it was then known to Westerners) in a bloody civil war and exiled the Kuomintang Chinese Nationalists to Taiwan- now a separate, democratic country. This, if historical trends are observed may suggest that the CCP leadership may want to make the most of these celebrations because they certainly won't be witnessing anymore- most definitely not a centenary in 2049. The Hong Kong protests are of a very different manner but their thirst for democracy cannot be quenched by ignorance from Beijing. Mainlanders (those who don't live in HK) are not stupid. They know what is going on and they too, particularly the young (the offspring of the Tiananmem generation) want change too. Change will happen but will it be done cooperatively from top to bottom or a violent revolution?

Looking at the maths and experiences from other counties shows us what to perhaps expect:

Soviet Union: 1917-1991(74 years): not until 1924 did the new government essentially gain any kind of control and by the 1980s the state was crumbling. The USSR's transition was relatively peaceful- Gorbachev is considered a traitor in Chinese Communist Party circles.

Mexico: 1929-2000 (71 years): another revolutionary mess like Russia and China in the 1920s pre-one party rule. Economic realities started to bring the Institutional Revolutionary Party to an end (although not completely) in the 1980s and 1990s.

Cuba: 1959-present (55 years): this is the anomalie here but the scale of economic reform in Cuba has essentially assured that the country is on a path to change. Not until the death of Fidel Castro will the country be allowed to mourn and move on.

The patterns of two of the main former Communist one party states, the Soviet Union and Mexico under the IRP shows that their lifespans are around 70 years. According to trends, the Chinese Communist Party has about a decade left. A decade of their own managed decline? A decade of transition? A decade of renewal? The new Chinese president- Xi Jinping recently declared the Party would live for a thousand autumns and ten thousands generations. There is certainly worry at the top of Chinese politics. 

The economy of China needs to be stressed here. Either way it goes- change is coming. If the economy continues to experience rapid growth then living standards will increase, the middle classes will expand, the people will look for change. If however, as some economists have predicted, the economy slows and perhaps even slumps into a recession of some sort, this will be destructive for the CCP. As seen in Mexico and the USSR, economic meltdown after a boom results in people blaming the current government and administration. The CCP is the most corrupt political party in the world and whilst many are prepared to tolerate this as of now, it will not be tolerated in an economic slump. These middle classes will not simply go away, they are enjoying their Western living standards and will not give them up without a fight. The amount of Chinese students attending Western universities continues to rise and the exposure to social media, freedom of speech and a cultural awareness cannot be erased from their minds like robots when they return to China. 

The problem with many students and like minded individuals which we have seen in Hong Kong this week is that there is no concered opposition in China because they have been systematically stamped out by the government. The big problem if some form of revolution occurs is that there may be nothing to replace the current system and instead they could end up with what we have seen in Russia today or even Egypt. After all, they will be governing over 1.3 billion people. This can either be done by federalism or absolute dictatorship. If they go for the former, then regions such as Tibet and the Muslims of the North West may demand greater control of their affairs or maybe even independence. 

Demographics are rapidly changing in China too. Around 10% of China's 1.3 billion inhabitants are over 65 years old. This coupled with a very low birth rate will result in an decreasing labour force each year well into the 2030s. There is also a serious gender imbalance too with more males than females- resulting in less future births- unless millions of men decide to have a sex change, the population is expected to decrease over the century. 

To complete this blog- I'm not suggesting the upcoming disintegration of China itself but I am forecasting big change in China over the next decade and perhaps in the coming years. For now, let us see how the Hong Kong protests pan out. The current status quo is unsustainable and China needs it's Gorbachev. The Communist Party knows this and it is either going to have to get on board or be forced out on the plank. 

Why Barrow-in-Furness is a Great Place to live.

I couldn't help but see from my newsfeed on Facebook and Twitter today that my hometown, Barrow-in-Furness is according to the Office for National Statistics the 'most miserable' place to live in the United Kingdom. First of all, my fellow Barrovians, this is not an accurate or credible survey and it's methodology should be questioned. Do not despair, I'm sure we can all name worse places. I'm also sure we can all name reasons why Barrow and Furness is a fantastic place to live.

First of all however, the OfNS report suggested also that Northern Ireland* was the 'happiest' place to live in the country. This seems rather odd for a place which is still dogged by violent and bitter sectarianism, the so called 'peace walls' which divide communities, high unemployment and a turbulent history not seen in the Furness area probably since the English Civil War. So again, do not despair, this report obviously has flaws. 

Let's return to look at the geography of Barrow and the Furness area. Anyone who has embarked on a rail journey either in the Carlisle or Lancaster directions knows how stunning the views are. Barrow sits on the edge of the world renowned Lake District, a place of natural beauty and since the 18th Century, Barrow had been placed in the 'South Lakeland' column of the Preston Guardian. The Lakes to the North, the breathtaking Morecambe Bay Sands to our South, Piel Island, the magnificent and historically significant Abbey, I could continue. Wordsworth himself visited the area and mentions the Abbey in his poem: 'The Prelude', United States President Theodore Roosevelt visited the area during his childhood and there have been rumours of King John's lost treasure and the one and only Holy Grail of Jesus being hidden in a tunnel beneath the town. Barrow has a stunning countryside, historical mysteries and fabulous locality.

Looking more towards the town proper itself, many people in the town are part of an industry which builds world class submarines for the Royal Navy. From Elizabeth II to Winston Churchill, from Lady Diana to Princess Margaret- royal and historical giants have come to the town to adoring crowds to launch vessels built by the shipyard workers. IJN Mikasa, the flagship of the Russo-Japanese War 1904-1905 was constructed in the Barrow shipyard and constitutes a rightful place as one of the three great vessels of the world alongside HMS Victory and USS Constitution. There is not a more proud town which has done so much that I cannot think of in the United Kingdom. All of us in Barrow either have currently or have had a relative who works in the shipyard.

Barrow has it's fair share of problems like the rest of Britain but you just go and have a look at Toxteth in Liverpool, Brixton in London or just recently central Glasgow after the Scottish referendum. No disrespect to these places but Barrovians need feel no shame about their town. From those I know in Barrow, there is an appetite of aspiration in the town and the town will change and evolve like it always has. 

There are tons of things I could have mentioned as to why Barrow and Furness are great but then I'd end up writing a dissertation. However, we can be proud of our history and our successes but they are part of history for a reason and they are there to be celebrated. Barrow and Barrovians can easily be looking forward to a bright future. I know it and the town knows it. Look at your life and tell me it isn't as bad as the young children being murdered in Iraq this evening? Tell me instead that your proud of your town and that you are sick of outsiders telling you otherwise.

Dedicated to those Barrovians more happy than miserable.

*No disrespect to the people of Northern Ireland.

The Future of the Labour Party?

The Labour Party has been the most significant challenger to the Conservative Party since their first election victory in 1929 and the demise and split of the Liberal Party. It had shaky administrations under J. R. MacDonald and eventually had to form a 'National Government' committed to deep spending cuts under the leadership of Conservative, Stanley Baldwin in the 1930s. They formed their first major and successful government in 1945. It was a new age. Industries were nationalised, thousands of homes built, an Olympic Games was held in London in 1948 but the big achievement was universal healthcare. Labour for its time was a successful Keynsian Party.

The National Health Service became the baby of the Labour Party. Labour's commitment to it, like a parent smothering it in cotton wool, has resulted in the lack of reorganisation and reform over a fifty year period. Whilst this has done many electoral favours for Labour, it can't use it alone if it wants to win back Downing Street.

The Party itself is actually the least successful in a historical context. The Conservative Party has it's origins in the 17th and 18th Centuries as did what became the Liberal Party. Labour, de facto, formed around 1900 and only entered government mostly through Coalition until 1945. Since then, it has only won elections in: 1964, 1966, 1974, 1997, 2001 and 2005. That covers the administrations of Clement Attlee, Harold Wilson, James Callaghan, Tony Blair and Gordon Brown- two were unelected. The way Labour is heading now and with changing constitutional circumstances, the Party is set to be out of power for perhaps a generation.

Ed Miliband's speech today was cosy, comfortable, uninspiring and barely revolutionary. It's the usual spiel that shows that Mr Miliband doesn't know his history. In the 1980s, Michael Foot and Neil Kinnock both did not understand that socialism was a failed experiment and even their working class voter base wanted to see tough law and order, an economic arena to aspire and a bit of patriotic fervour from their politicians. I'm sure Ed Miliband is a genuine guy but what exists of his policies do not address the nations problems. You could see that he wasn't pleasing the much more hard left of Labour and the Unions and also not those that want to see a Blairite leading the Party at today's conference. He was simply the wrong choice to lead Labour in the political age we are now living in.

Another problem for Labour has been highlighted by the recent constitutional issues brought about by the Scottish rejection of independence and the rise of 'English votes for English Issues'. Ed Miliband clearly knows that Labour has struggled to form a majority in England only and has instead relied on Scottish and Welsh voters to send Labour MPs to Westminster. He will try his best to halt the issue but will eventually have to concede to the will of the English. This is now a problem as David Cameron, many Tories and UKIP are seeking to remove the rights of certainly Scottish MPs to vote on issues which effect England only. As recently as 2005, Labour has failed to get a majority of the vote in England so you can see the problem the Party faces in the future, unless it takes a new direction in terms of leadership and policy. Maybe even that is not enough.

David Cameron and the Conservative Party is now certain for victory in May 2015. The fact a Tory Prime Minister in power still didn't tip the Scots towards independence and the recovery of the economy is a testament to his leadership. Labour on the other hand needs to start looking for a new leader with haste.

Why the Better Together campaign was a shambles

In less than two weeks, the United Kingdom could be irrevocably changed forever. Since 1707, Scotland and England, along with Wales and now Northern Ireland have endured over 300 years of shared history and endeavour. The United Kingdom has proved to be the most successful union of nations the globe has ever known. 

As I'm sure many are aware, the very concept of 'Great Britain' could be over. The campaign designed to stop this: Better Together has made serious errors and poor judgements. The Yes Campaign is consistently climbing in the polls because it has seized the false vision of their own optimism. I hope to allay the errors of the Better Together Campaign below.

1. The people who have fronted the Better Together Campaign have been the Labour Party and many members of Gordon Brown's government including the man himself. Why? Why did Better Together choose the man (Alistair Darling) to front a campaign to keep Scotland in union when he presided over the worst economic crisis since the 1930s and subsequently lost the 2010 general election? The members of the Brown government are toxic beyond belief. 

2. The myth that the Conservative Party is toxic in Scotland. The Tories have been forced to take a secondary role in Better Together somehow because they only have 1/59 Scottish parliamentary seats at Westminster. This is nonsense. The Tory vote in Scotland has become spread out geographically (something First Past the Post penalises) and in the most recent European election for the Scotland constituency, the Conservatives under David Cameron actually INCREASED their share of the vote. Coupling their votes with UKIP in a kind of centre-right alliance would have placed them above Labour and just behind the SNP. The Conservative Party's origins lie in the Scottish Jacobites and ideals of traditional Toryism in the 17th and 18th Centuries. The first Tory Prime Minister was Scottish; the Earl of Bute in the 1760s. Many Scots understand the need for spending cuts, there is a proud British military tradition, two Royal Navy aircraft carriers are to be built on the Clyde and many in Scotland have socially liberal values which the Westminster parties all share. After all, the Coalition has legislated for same-sex marriage but it was the SNP supporting Brian Souter, owner of Stagecoach and major financial donor to the Yes Campaign that fought to repeal Clause 28 (a clause which forbade the 'promotion' of homosexuality in schools). The Conservatives and David Cameron should have played a much more vocal and active role in Better Together.

 

3. If any, it would be the Liberal Democrats who have become poisonous across the United Kingdom. Going back on their tuition fee pledge was a disgrace and lost them their sizeable student vote. However, their embrace of federalism perhaps could be the answer. Federalism alongside localism, a devolution of power to ordinary people. The Conservatives have been historically in favour of this too, as has UKIP (whatever your opinion is on some of their more dubious views). The SNP has a poor record with local devolution and would only seek to centralise power in Edinburgh should an independent Scotland occur. 

The failure of Better Together to offer concrete new powers for Scotland as well as local governments has damaged their legitimacy and has allowed the SNP to trump their anti-Westminster rhetoric. A Cameron-Salmond debate with Cameron fully armed with concrete policies for Scotland would have seen off Salmond and forced the Yes Camp into disarray.

It would be a national tragedy if Scotland voted to leave our union of nations. The world is a dangerous place: an flexing Russia, the rise of the Islamic State and the instability in the global economy repudiate the SNP's fairy world dreams post-Yes. The world would be a less safer place if Scotland left and would severely reduce the UK's global role as an importance economic, humanitarian and military power. 

Anglosphere- The Beacon of Progress

The world over recent years has been suffering economic meltdown, mass poverty and violent conflict. International organisations such as the UN and the EU are loosing influence fast either because they are not seen as credible or offer mediocre solutions. It is difficult to see a positive future for planet Earth.

The Anglosphere however, that is primarily defined as: the United States, Australia, New Zealand, the United Kingdom and Canada whilst potentially including South Africa, India and the democratic Caribbean islands is offering a beacon of progress and hope for the world.

The term 'Anglosphere' means what it says- a collection of countries who share English as the main language of communication. However this is not the only shared characteristic. We share democratic institutions such as parliamentary/representative democracy, the rule of law and trial by jury. We share historical struggles for freedom and liberty. We share an endeavour for a world of opportunity, freedom and happiness.

The economies of the Anglosphere have been forecast a much brighter future than those in the Eurozone or stagnant Japan. Even China in some economic circles, is not expected to overtake the American economy after all and would likely never reach it's GDP figures. Britain, as recently seen, is surging ahead of its European neighbours with France stuck at zero growth and the German economy dipping. Whilst Britain's membership of the European Union is continually of political and public importance, it is of no question that the Eurozone is heading in a completely different direction to Britain- a direction which we cannot follow. Australia has embraced it's economic freedom and has seen an economic success story alongside the Asian Tigers.

Perhaps it is time for Britain to retake its place alongside our brethren?

Diplomatically and militarily, the Anglosphere would be perhaps the most formidable power on Earth. This title is not necessarily desirable but it can be useful in shaping the world into a better place. The EU has no credible and collective foreign policy which stifles it's influence and the United States cannot act alone. Britain still maintains largely positive relations with her former colonies in Africa and Asia and bringing them further into the Anglo-Saxon economic fold alongside our democratic values would make the regions much better places and crushing poverty in these regions is of utmost importance and is in the national interest.

This is by no means a solution to the world's problems. However, a united, vibrant and successful Anglosphere can truly provide the world with a beacon of hope and freedom for which all should be welcomed. Our future economic position, our proud history- literally running through our collective bloods and our shared values of liberty can only be a force for good for the 21st Century, for ourselves and greater Earth.

The Ukrainian Question

The current crisis in Ukraine and that is UKRAINE, not THE UKRAINE which is an altogether larger historical and disputed geopolitical region is continuing to thrust itself into the international spotlight. The crisis will be at the top of the agenda in the upcoming NATO summit in Wales and it appears the conflict is only going to escalate unless leadership on all sides is taken.

The big problem in this NATO-Russia-Ukraine triad of relations is a complete lack of understanding on all sides. I shall deal with each party and hopefully help to explain how they can all solve the situation.

1. Russia. Vladimir Putin, although he denies, has invaded and is interfering in a sovereign state- a member of the United Nations and is almost certainly against international law. This does Russia no favours and gives it a negative and aggressive reputation within many countries, particularly weary governments in Eastern Europe such as Poland whom have had such a difficult historical relationship with Russia. Vladimir Putin using military force only devalues the influence Russia can have in being able to work cooperatively with NATO and the West.

2. NATO. The military alliance has played a leading role in the criticism of Russia, rightly so in terms of the violation of Ukraine's sovereignty. However, what NATO and the West fail to understand is the sense of disenfranchisement and alienation felt in places like Crimea and the Donetsk region in Eastern Ukraine. Many here have deep affinity for Russia and for some it has meant taking up arms as a last resort as the Kiev government is offering no concrete change such as devolution. Also, Ukraine is NOT a member of NATO which does not oblige the organisation to defend it in the event of invasion. However, the Kiev government has stated it's recent intention to seek membership of the alliance. This is problematic as Russia continually feels encircled and threatened by NATO- stoking tensions further. Ceasing accession talks temporarily could help stabilise relations.

3. Ukraine. The 'Revolution' as was seen a few months back when the pro-Russian regime was toppled was essentially a coup d'état. A democratically elected government was overthrown and there did appear to be a worrying amount of fundamental nationalists within the factions. This only serves to alienate those in the East of the country further and reinforces their claims of persecution and disenfranchisement. The Kiev government recently elected has also not done itself any favours and has made no attempts to reconcile the pro-Russian factions, instead meeting them with force.

4. Solutions. This is no easy task. However, all sides must recognise realities and de-escalate the situation. Russia must cease all invasions and instead come to the negotiating table alongside their allies in Ukraine and the Kiev government must acknowledge the grievances of their Eastern citizens and whilst maintaining that Russian intervention is completely unacceptable. NATO, the EU and the United States should be offering support to both sides and offer reassurance to Russia, an important member of the international community who should be working alongside side the West with issues such as anti-terrorism. After all, the threats of war seem to be very ironic and if war was to come, it would be very sad indeed considering the world's commemoration and remembrance of the First World War.