Chris McKie

Hello forum devotees. I am Chris McKie. I have been teaching History and Government & Politics since 1995. I have recently moved to the Wirral from Wolverhampton in the UK. My first teaching job was in a private school in London. I am about to start my third teaching post and first as Head of Department. My historical passions are numerous, but include 19th century British political history and the Reformation era in Europe. Having studied for a Masters degree in US Government and Politics at Essex University in my younger days, I am always keen to throw myself into political debates. Apart from the politics of the UK and the USA, I am also interested in matters pertaining to the EU.

Congratulations, John! I only wish I had enough time on my hands to post more often.

In defence of the US electoral system, I would argue that the system of checks and balances enshrined in the Constitution helps to ensure that no one branch of government dominates the other two. A President who experiences divided government (i.e. an opposition-controlled Congress) can have a very rough ride. Even a President with Congress in his own party’s hands can still experience difficulties given the relatively loose party discipline. This was certainly the case with Jimmy Carter and JFK. Separation of powers is a key concept in the USA. Admittedly, the politicisation of the Supreme Court (particularly in the 1980s) does erode this concept somewhat. However, presidential nominations for public office have to be ratified by the Senate. The notoriously racist Robert Bork (a Reagan nominee for the Supreme Court) was rejected by the US Senate in the 1980s. The political system in the USA is far from perfect, however. The Presidential election of 2000 clearly highlighted that. However, the USA is democratic by any reasonable definition of the term. Free elections take place at regular intervals. The US President is bound by the Constitution to hold the general election every four years. The House of Representatives is elected on a proportional basis. Electoral districts are reasonably equal. Politicians can be held to account in what is a very open political system. Rumsfeld and Rice were both recently grilled by Congressmen. Government is close to the people in that the federal states have a legislature, executive (the governor) and judiciary. Apart from the inequities of the electoral college system, my main gripe with the US electoral system has already been highlighted on this thread: the issue of campaign finance. No electoral system is perfect. The Indian people thought they were voting for Sonia Gandhi as PM.

This seems a long way from a discussion of Le Pen but this is not strictly accurate. The Kronstadt sailors in 1921 were not the very same sailors who had spearheaded the October Revolution. They were actually fresh levies from the peasantry who were replacing those sailors who were fighting to defend the revolution on many fronts. They were fighting for free trade and soviets without Bolsheviks. I am a little concerned that this discussion is turning into an attack on anti-fascists on the assumption that we are the main enemy. Granted, some of the Kronstadt sailors in 1921 were conscripts from the Ukraine. Yet, Israel Getzler and Orlando Figes have both demonstrated that the majority of their leaders were veteran sailors of the Kronstadt Fleet. On the two major ships involved in the mutiny, the Petropavlovsk and the Sevastopol, 94% had been recruited before 1918. On 8 March 1921, the rebellious Kronstadt Revolutionary Committee published in its own Izvestiia a statement of ‘What are we fighting for’. For them and many others in Russia it summed up what had gone wrong with the Revolution: “By carrying out the October Revolution the working class had hoped to achieve its emancipation. But the result has been an even greater enslavement of human beings. The power of the monarchy, with its police and gendarmerie, has passed into the hands of the Communist usurpers, who have given the people not freedom but the constant fear of torture by the Cheka… Through the state control of the trade unions they have chained the workers to the machines so that labour is no longer a source of joy but a new form of slavery. To the protests of the peasants, expressed in spontaneous uprisings, and those of the workers, whose living conditions have compelled them to strike, they have answered with mass executions and the bloodletting that exceeds even the tsarist generals…” They rallied against what they saw as betrayal by the Bolsheviks. Namely, that the original conception of the soviet as a free and self-governing revolutionary community had been violated by the authoritarianism of the Bolshevik Party. Free and healthy debate: where’s the harm in that? Le Pen is a fascist and profoundly authoritarian. If we are to expose his bigotry, then surely we need to do that in a rational debate. All contributors to this debate are, I am sure, “anti-fascists” and as such should support the right of free speech.

I also agree with John (and Andy): Both Trotsky and Stalin (and Lenin for that matter too) believed in the suppression of free speech and were profoundly anti-democratic. The Kronstadt sailors felt the full force of Trotsky's authoritarianism in March 1921. These very same sailors spearheaded the October Revolution. Were their demands counter-revolutionary? Of course not. Among others things, they asked for free elections to the soviets, secret ballots, an end to war communism, free assembly for all workers and peasants... Alexandra Kollantai and the Workers Opposition decried the creeping bureaucracy and lack of democracy in the years following the revolution. All dissent was crushed by Lenin with the full backing of Trotsky. There are so many more examples of Trotsky's authoritarianism. Let's judge him by his deeds, not his self-justifying theorising.

I happen to agree with you, John (and Andy). Le Pen is a despicable and abhorrent racist, but should still be allowed to visit this country. Why should we be worried about providing him with a platform to exhibit his prejudices? As John makes clear, we should feel confident about our own views and face him down. I agree with David Blunkett who said on the BBC: "If he behaves himself, then he's free to come and go as any other citizen in Europe. If he incites or causes public disorder, then the police will act immediately, and I will give them any support they need." Le Pen is much more highly regarded in some sections of his own country than he is in the rest of Europe. His party is a major force in French politics and I obviously hope that the BNP fails to make any significant electoral breakthroughs in the UK. There is some concern that Nick Griffen (the BNP leader) will win a seat in the European Parliament in the June election. Given the use of the list system this is a distinct possibility, particularly with a low turnout. As for his party's prospects at Westminster, that thankfully looks a forlorn prospect. What I find most worrying is that the far right in Europe now seems to be beginning to co-ordinate their activities throughout the continent. Compared to the Front National, the BNP only enjoy a marginal political influence in the UK. However, that was also the case with Le Pen and his party until the early 1980s. We must therefore be careful not to be too complacent in the UK.

It depends on what you mean by forseeable. Elections can only be held when the security situation allows it. Security is inextricably bound up with reconstruction. The reconstruction process has been painfully slow, unsurprising given the acts of sabotage perpretated by Saddam loyalists, extremists and foreign insurgents. The Iraqi people deserve to live in a state that will provide them with not only security, but also with running water, electricity and job opportunities. To protect Iraq's future, the Coalition troops must remain in place for the forseeable future. Democracy will only be achievable in Iraq if the economic stability of the country is safeguarded and that means US help. There is bound to be an upsurge in attacks as we approach the June 30th deadline for the transitional government. Nonetheless, the Coalition must not shirk responsibility now. Yes, I did support the war effort, but that doesn't mean that I automatically think Bush has done a good job in the post-conflict situation. It is on this issue, amongst others, that John Kerry might gain some political capital come November. Perhaps, I am naive, but I hope not.

One major difference: Canada already has a fully functioning democratic political system. Whereas, Iraq under Saddam Hussein was a barbaric and brutal dictatorship. The USA (even under Bush) will not invade Canada. Has the Canadian government been guilty of invading neighbouring countries or using chemical agents against its own people? Bush was elected President under the vagaries of the US electoral college system and a bit of help from his brother, Jeb! I suspect I was as unsatisfied as you appear to be with the shenanighans surrounding the Presidential election in 2000. The Americans plan to establish a broad-based Iraqi government on 30 June. Hopefully, proper elections will be held some time in the future when the security situation allows it. Iraq at least has a chance of a better future now Saddam has gone.

But will the EU's Constitution be understood by all? I sincerely hope so, or what's the point of having referendum on such a difficult issue? What can be done to educate the population of Europe about the relevant issues? I'm all for reducing the impact of the far right, but are you seriously concerned that the BNP will make significant gains in the next general election? That really would be a worrying development for democracy in the UK.

I agree that democracy is the long-term answer. I also agree that the fulfilment of a democratic Iraq is not an easy task. The Coalition is also correct to warn of further attacks as we approach June 30th. The USA and her coalition partners must grit their teeth and get on with it. The process of rebuilding Iraq's infrastructure must continue over the weeks and months ahead. If this happens, then I believe democracy has a chance in Iraq. Should the troops now just leave Iraq? Surely, that would just lead to a bloodbath and years of internal strife. Perhaps, another dictatorial figure would emerge. Deserting the Iraqi people now will surely only inflame the already precarious situation.

That's one of the main problems with referenda in my opinion, Dalibor. The electorate may not vote on the issue under consideration. They may be swayed by their opinion of the government and let that cloud their judgement. To be fair, some countries (Ireland is an obvious example) must hold a referendum on the proposed Constitution under their own constitutional arrangements. It is inevitable that both sides will try dominate the campaign agenda. Blair will probably try to argue that it is a vote on whether Britain should remain in the EU in an attempt to scare voters into voting 'yes'. The Conservatives will exaggerate the impact of the Constitution on the UK and will probably argue that the new arrangements will mean that Britain loses control over issues such as taxation and immigration, when in fact that is patently not the case. If there is going to be a referendum, I hope the electorate in Britain (and elsewhere) actually knows what they are voting on. Relying on politicians to tell them what the impact of the constitution will be is a dangerous game. Given that, a strong case can be made for arguing that referenda are not effective democratic tools. In addition, the turnout in the UK next autumn will no doubt be disappointingly low.

Wishful thinking on your part, I fear! I would predict a Blair victory at the next election with a reduced overall majority in double digits (say, 60-90 seats). It's all guesswork at this stage, but I can't see Howard making huge inroads into Labour's massive majority in the Commons. I'm not convinced that the EU will lose Blair votes at the next general election. The British public, at best, are apathetic about this issue. The turnout for the EP elections in June and the referendum on the Constitution next year will confirm this. At least the British public will have an opportunity to express their opinion at a referendum. I just hope the issue is debated properly in the press and the corridors of power, but somehow I doubt it. It is for this reason that I am rather sceptical about the use of referendums. At the time of the Maastricht referendum in 1992 in France, Mitterand provided all voters with a copy of the whole treaty. Perhaps, Blair might consider doing likewise when the EU Constitution is finalised in June. At least, if that happens, then the voters cannot complain about not having the necessary information at their fingertips. My understanding of the situation is that Schroeder, fearing defeat, will definitely not hold a referendum on the issue. Chirac, on the other hand, is waiting until the final draft of the treaty has been agreed. He may just be under increased pressure from the French press and electorate over the coming weeks to grant a referendum. Given what occurred in Sweden last September (euro referendum and the assassination of Anna Lindt), it is hardly surprising that Goran Persson has refused to grant a referendum on the proposed constitution. Not living in France, I was just wondering if JP Raud Dugal or any other members of the forum had a better idea of the extent of the pressure building up on Chirac to hold a referendum.

The bombings in Basra today clearly demonstrate that Iraq is a long way from being secure. From June 30th I hope the situation will improve, but until it does Coalition forces should remain in Iraq to necessitate a smooth transition to a viable Iraqi state. I would also hope that your third alternative remains a probability. Iraq will need continued financial commitment for years to come and the heavy involvement of the UN. If this happens, then there is a chance Iraq will not fall to Islamic fundamentalism. I admitted earlier that US forces have been heavy-handed. Numerous British officers have voiced their own concerns about the way Bush has handled the situation. His strategy for the post-war reconstruction of Iraq is muddled at best. John Kerry is correct to criticise Bush for this, in my opinion. As for the treatment of non-combatants, the kidnapping of civilians by groups opposed to the Coalition is despicable. The killing of Italian Fabrizio Quattrocchi last Wednesday is unforgivable, as is today’s tragedy in Basra affecting schoolchildren amongst others. A job remains to be done in Iraq. The Iraqi people should not be left at the mercy of another fanatical dictator. American tactics must change and I hope they begin to tread carefully around Najaf and Falluja. Let's not forget that US forces have come under heavy fire and suffered many casualties themselves. Mistakes were made last year. The Iraqi army should not have been disbanded and too many US troops went home after the war. A security vacuum has been created in Iraq and until the Iraqis are up to policing their own country, the Coalition forces should remain in place.

I think the situation is a little more complicated than you suggest, John. I'm sure Murdoch is a factor, but outflanking the Tories in the run up to the European Parliamentary elections is also very much on Blair's mind. If Blair gets his wish to hold the referendum in the autumn of 2005 (after his expected victory in next spring's general election), then I wouldn't be too sure that he would lose. Blair can project himself as a champion of democracy by giving the public a chance to have their say in a referendum. Agreeing to hold a referendum may also provide Blair with a greater degree of influence during the upcoming negotiations over the constitution. It also places Chirac in a difficult position. Do the French members of the forum think that Chirac will grant a referendum on this issue? Or, is he too worried about the possibility of a close call like that on Maastricht in 1992?

I just don’t see how the Coalition can back down from their commitments in Iraq. Granted, aggressive US tactics will do little to win ‘the hearts and minds’ of the Iraqi people, but it is vital that the task is seen through right till the end. The UN should put together the arrangements for the transitional government from 30 June and Coalition forces will still be required to remain in the country for the sake of security. Understandably many Iraqis are losing patience with the Coalition. They see ‘occupation’ not ‘liberation’. Given the history of the area, this is hardly surprising. However, this is not the time to ‘cut and run’ as many people seem to be suggesting. If this were to happen, Iraq would be left at the mercy of radical armed factions and no doubt face years of upheaval and lawlessness. It is time to get behind the efforts to establish a democratic Iraq. It will be a long and painful process and I certainly don’t always agree with Bush’s modus operandi, but what alternative do we realistically have? Heavy UN involvement in reconstructing the country is a must. Iraqis need to feel valued in their own country. That means providing Iraqis with job and educational opportunities. It will be a long and painful process, but this is not the time to shirk responsibility.

I'm not sure how much further we can take this debate, Dalibor. It has been interesting to debate with you and I respect your opinions. I think the main points of difference between us (and indeed, John Simkin enters into the equation as well) are as follows (please corect me if I'm wrong!): 1. You seem to think that Bush has attempted to deal with the Palestinian issue, partly through the invasion of Iraq. I would say that, at best, the Iraq War has had a neutral impact on the conflict between Palestine and Israel. John Simkin appears to argue that Bush's "policies have increased the conflict between Arabs and Jews in the Middle East." So the first question we disagree on is: how successfully has Bush dealt with the Arab-Israeli problem? 2. You also seem to credit Bush with making as good an attempt as some recent politicians (e.g. Clinton) to deal with the crisis through the US President's Road Map. I remember, rather naively, being quite 'excited' when the Road Map was announced. I am now of the opinion that Bush's priorities have changed post 9/11. He wishes to concentrate on the 'War against terrorism'. Whilst you and I may be in agreement with Bush's policy in Afghanistan (and Iraq), I think that he should do more to foster better relations between Palestinians and Israelis. Unless he does that the Americans will never 'win' the war against terrorism. The Iraq War is now over (athough of course the crisis in that country still persists), so I would argue that Bush needs to redouble his efforts to place the Road Map at the top of his agenda. 3. You seem to argue that us Europeans are expecting too much of the Americans and we should play more of a role in the Middle East. To an extent I would agree with you and I refer you back to my last post concerning attempts by the Blair government to kickstart the process by offering technical expertise to the PA. However, I would also argue that the Israelis are much more likely to be influenced by Washington than anyone else. If Bush is serious about stamping out terrorism, he will have to tackle the crisis between the Palestinians and Israelis. No more pre-emptive strikes should be on his agenda at the moment. It is time to force the two competing parties around the negotiating table and meet the 2005 deadline for a viable Palestinian state. Other countries can play a part, but the onus is on the Americans as the only world superpower to exert their influence on Israel (just as the onus was on the Americans to overthrow the Taliban and Saddam Hussein). 4. This 'Blair Doctrine' thread somehow led on to a debate about whether John Kerry would do a better job. I take some responsibility for this. It's not always easy keeping political debates on topic. I tend to agree with John Simkin that "John Kerry might not end up being any better, but he can hardly be any worse than Bush." You are not convinced given the fact that Kerry is untried in the realm of foreign policy. He has more experience than most presidential candidates as I mentioned earlier. I'm not really sure where this thread should go now. I just hope I haven't confused matters still further. Whatever the case, it has been interesting Dalibor.

You have made an interesting post, Dalibor. I still take issue with your comment in your previous post that “one of the reasons for the war on Iraq was to find yet another opportunity to “open the deadlocked situation” in the Middle East.” Bush, as I explained earlier, had other motives. I hope you are correct that the war in Iraq will be beneficial to the Middle East peace process, but I am not so sure about that. The actions of Gaddafi are to be welcomed and no doubt he was heavily influenced by the strength of the coalition forces in Iraq. However, Libya has not been a threat to international peace for quite some time now. I still don’t think that the war in Iraq will help to solve the problems which exist between Palestine and Israel. This is a completely separate issue and one that requires an even-handed approach by the Americans and other parties around the world. The Road Map was supposed to ensure that there would be an even-handed approach to this conflict, placing certain responsibilities on both the Israelis and Palestinian Authority (PA). The Israelis have continued to build settlements in the occupied territory despite half-hearted US calls for them to stop. That was a fundamental part of the Road Map. Israeli government figures show that 35% more building took place in 2003 than in 2002. I don’t think Bush has been insistent enough. Whether you agree with it or not, the feeling persists in the Arab world that the US continues to show bias in favour of Israel. Where is the political will from Washington and Israel to implement the Road Map? In George Bush’s much heralded speech of June 2002, he stated that “A stable, peaceful Palestinian state is necessary to achieve the security that Israel longs for. So I challenge Israel to take concrete steps to support the emergence of a viable, credible Palestinian state…As we make progress towards security, Israel forces need to withdraw fully to positions they held prior to September 28, 2000. And consistent with the recommendations of the Mitchell Committee, Israeli settlement activity in the occupied territories must stop.” Sharon has not stopped. The Palestinians are not blameless either. The continued acts of terrorism by extremists also place the Road Map in jeopardy. This is why it is vital for other countries (not only the USA) to exert pressure on both sides to fulfil the Road Map’s stated aims of seeing a viable Palestinian state established by 2005, whilst at the same time preserving the security of Israel. As for Tony Blair, I would suggest he’s done more than most to strive for a workable solution to the problem. The British government is at present working to help the Palestinian Authority reform its security apparatus in the West Bank and Gaza Strip. This amounts to providing financial and logistical support. It is not inconceivable that if there are signs of progress then Britain will send security staff experienced in the Northern Ireland conflict to help the Palestinians rebuild their security apparatus (prisons, police stations…), much of which has been destroyed by the Israelis. The first pilot scheme got under way two weeks ago in Ramallah. It is vital that the PA takes the weapons off the streets and thus assuages the justifiable fears of the Israelis. If the Palestinians can act on matters of security, then perhaps the peace process can get back on track. This British initiative has the full backing of the EU, but Bush has been very quiet thus far. The Israelis are not convinced, either. We’ll see just how successful this Blair initiative is over the coming months. However, without the active support of the USA (and that is increasingly unlikely given that it is election year in America) the crisis in the Middle East is as likely to escalate as it is to get back on track. John Kerry may not be the answer, but I am convinced Bush has other priorities. Bush's modus operandi can do little to move the process forward. The USA has few allies abroad and is widely distrusted by Arab states the world over. I would hope that John Kerry could start to rebuild some of that trust. Perhaps, in conjunction with other countries (in Europe and the Arab world) the Palestinian peace process can move forward. I am less convinced that we will see this happening under a Bush Presidency. If the incumbent does win in November, I hope I am proved wrong.

I agree that Jimmy Carter placed a great deal of emphasis on reaching a solution to the conflict between Egypt and Israel. However, I don't think Bush has placed the Arab Israeli conflict at the top of his agenda. The war against Iraq was not an attempt to "open the deadlocked situation" in the Middle East. It was about regime change in Iraq and a reaction to the events of 9/11. A fully-fledged democratic Iraq, if it ever happens, will benefit the Middle East as a whole, as such a country will be unlikely to attack its neighbours or kill its own people. The removal of Saddam can be justified on those grounds. The Iraq War has failed to prevent a continuation and escalation of the Arab-Israeli conflict. The Iraq war should be treated separately to the Palestinian question. Whatever the shape or form of government in Baghdad, Palestinians and Israelis will still continue to kill each other unless the West actively engages in the whole process. Any future US President has to tackle this question head on. For me that means placing priority on the Road Map to peace, thus satisfying Israel's desire for security and the Palestinians desire for a fully-independent state - not an easy task! It will therefore take a politician of vision and courage to get Sharon and Qureia to sit around the same negotiating table and work out a deal. You are right to heap praise on Carter for his role in the Camp David accords, but they did not result in a permanent solution to the conflict. I don't know if John Kerry will be a truely constructive influence on the politics of the region. However, the Americans must start to build bridges with the Arab world. Perhaps, Kerry's more internationalist line in foreign policy is what is required to start to tackle this intractable problem. At the moment Kerry can only offer words, not deeds, unlike Bush. Bush has had a chance to make a difference, but as I stated earlier he has done little to foster better relations between Israelis and Palestinians. Are we now to hope that the Americans invade more Arab countries in an attempt to turn them into democracies? Is this the 'solution' to the Arab-Israeli conflict, Dalibor?

Haven´t they just been doing that for the past year? Or is Iraq situated outside the Middle East? What do you actually expect that Kerry will do if he wins the election? Can you give us some concrete proposal which could guide us to a better understanding of what yet untried will be tried by “the saviour” Kerry? On top of that are you expecting that Kerry will do better than Clinton managed during his eight years long presidency …….. If so, in what way? When I referred to the Middle East conflict, I was writing about the strife between Israel and the Palestinians. Although, I suspect we are in agreement over the justification for the war in Iraq, that conflict did not do a lot to improve relations between Sharon and the Palestinian authority. I suspect that John Kerry would place a higher priority on the Road Map. I don't think I would ever describe the Democratic candidate as a "saviour", but can you honestly say that George Bush has helped to foster better relations between Israel and Palestine? Unlike Clinton (and Bush, for that matter), Kerry has a great deal of experience in the realm of foreign affairs, having served on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee for 18 years. If you will allow me the liberty of quoting from the official Kerry campaign website: "John Kerry believes that history and our own best interests demand that the United States maintain a steady policy of friendship and support for Israel. As the only true democracy in the Middle East, Israel is our most important ally, and a critical partner in the quest for peace and security in this troubled region. America’s longstanding commitment to Israel’s independence and survival must never waver. Forging a stable and lasting peace in the Middle East is vital to American national security, to the security of Israel and other countries in the region, and to the aspirations of the Palestinian people for a viable Palestinian state. It is also an essential part of winning the war on terror. Ignoring or downplaying the conflict, as the Bush Administration did for far too long, is a dangerous game. From his many trips to the region, John Kerry knows that a majority of Israelis and Palestinians want peace and that Israelis expect there will be a Palestinian state. Energetic American leadership is essential to helping them achieve that peace because the United States is the one country with the ability to work with all the parties to facilitate a necessary and meaningful dialogue. John Kerry sees the Bush Administration's road map - albeit long overdue - as an acceptable approach for reinvigorating the peace process. But it will only be viable if U.S. engagement in this process is active, constant, and at the highest levels. The United States cannot walk away or lessen its commitment to this process when violence erupts and the going gets rough. Failure to remain actively engaged will lead to further difficulties down the road and set the prospects for peace farther back. John Kerry believes we must work actively to encourage an end to the violence and to help the parties take the steps outlined by the road map - which both Israelis and Palestinians find difficult. And we must be realistic about what they can and cannot accomplish. While no country can dictate the terms of peace, those opposed to peace can destroy its prospects. Israelis and Palestinians committed to peace cannot let that happen yet again. Progress toward peace cannot be made against a backdrop of terrorism and violence; they are not legitimate tools to achieve political goals. Prime Minister Qureia must take serious, demonstrable steps to stop the bombings against Israelis and to rein in militant Palestinian groups bent on destroying the peace process. In Kerry’s view, it is critical that our European and Arab allies support this effort aggressively. If Prime Minister Qureia is committed to this course of action, the United States and its allies should provide technical assistance and training to the Palestinian security forces to strengthen their capacity to root out terrorist groups. The United States must also work with both Israelis and Palestinians to create acceptable and verifiable security benchmarks that the Palestinian Authority can reasonably achieve. While Israel must never give up its right to protect its citizens, the Israeli government must be prepared to respond with steps to alleviate hardships on the Palestinian people. The United States must work with Israel to identify and implement these confidence building measures. As meaningful steps are taken to fight terrorism, Prime Minister Sharon and Prime Minister Qureia must move forward simultaneously with determination, perseverance, and demonstrated commitment on the road to peace. The United States must support their efforts - keep them focused on the end game of two states; Israel and Palestine, living side by aside in peace and security - and help them take the necessary steps to build enough confidence and trust in each other to get there. Kerry believes that a challenge of this magnitude and importance can only be met by successful and engaged Presidential leadership - leadership that he will provide as President."

Alma I don't know what has made you write the above post. You might not agree with John Simkin's original post, but he is surely entitled to his opinion. As far as I can see, this forum encourages posters to contribute to a range of 'hot' political issues of the day. I don't know any of my fellow History and Politics teachers who indoctrinate students. Instead, we encourage them to participate in lively debates and become free thinkers. Learning how your country's political system operates (and, those of other countries for that matter too) is a vital part of the curriculum in Britain. I can see nothing wrong with gaining a clearer understanding of the role of Parliament, pressure groups and the stance of the parties to name but three areas studied in the latter years of secondary education in the UK. It is possible to have strong views as a teacher. John has strong views on a range of subjects, as do I. We don't always agree with each other, but I certainly don't think either of us is guilty of indoctrinating students. If an educator disagrees with you, does that necessarily make them guilty of indoctrinating their students? Rant over. It might be a good idea if this thread gets back on topic. Apologies.

I wouldn't go as far as that in writing off John Kerry's chances - a lot can happen between now and November. I think Bush will win, but that does not mean I want him to win. Alma, I would be very interested to hear why you prefer a Bush victory. Is it because he has presided over a massive budget deficit? Is it because he gives no consideration to environmental issues? Or, was it his steel tariffs that you hanker after? It could be that you agree with his Iraqi policy. On the other hand, perhaps you have something against John Kerry? I would be genuinely interested to read your thoughts on these matters.

I think you might be confusing MI5 with MI6. MI6 is in charge of foreign operations and was invaluable during the Cold War era in particular. One of its finest Cold War coups was the way in which MI6 was able to obtain top-secret documents from Oleg Penkovsky, a colonel of Russian military intelligence at The Center in Moscow. This information was passed on to the CIA and certainly helped President Kennedy maintain his tough stance during the Cuban Missile Crisis. Kennedy was briefed that the Russians would back down and not risk a nuclear conflagaration. Of course, the very secrecy of the security services makes it difficult to pass judgements on how effective they have been. I certainly would not dismiss the value of the UK's security services as you readily do. I'm sure they've made mistakes, but does that mean we should just dispense with them altogether?

This speech was clearly an attempt by Blair to justify the Iraq war. I don't think it heralds a new dawn in international relations. If anything it shows just how unrepentant he is about his actions over the past year. I honestly believe that Blair was convinced Iraq had WMD and presented a long-term danger to Britain's security. Could Saddam be trusted in the long-term? Was containment really possible? Blair obviously though not. Military intelligence is not fool-proof. However, it is surely preferable to gather information on potential threats to the international order than to do nothing because we might get it wrong. I'm not suggesting you (John) are actually going as far as to suggest that our security services should cease to operate. But we must give them free licence (within reason) to pinpoint threats to Britain's national security. Blair is a realist and a pragmatic politician. The situation in the Middle East is particularly volatile just now and I would hope that he does not have any immediate plans to invade Syria. The British armed forces are over-stretched enough as it is. In a similar vein, launching an invasion of North Korea would be utter madness given their military capabilities. Pakistan presents a problem to Blair and Bush. On the one hand, Musharaff is a useful ally in the region, but on the other, Pakistan has deeply imbedded terrorist networks. Invading Pakistan would further inflame the delicate political situation in Afghanistan. Blair is realistic enough to realise this. Invading a country for "humanitarian reasons"? I wouldn't argue that this was top of Blair's agenda, either. Why would Britain wish to embroil itself in long drawn-out conflicts? I may have supported the decision to go to war against Iraq, but that doesn't mean that there should now be an escalation of the conflict. As I wrote earlier, now is the time to take stock, face up to our responsibilities and attempt to do something constructive. I would now like to see the political will from Washington and London to place the Middle East conflict at the top of their agenda. I fear that we'll have a better chance of that happening under a Kerry presidency. Roll on November and keep your fingers crossed.

I would argue that John appears to be right on this issue. The Washington Post-ABC News poll conducted between 4-7 March yielded the following results: John Kerry 48% George Bush 44% Ralph Nader 3% That same polling organisation also found that support for Ralph Nader comes almost entirely at the expense of Kerry, who would lead Mr Bush by nine points if it were a two-way contest. In addition, given those figures and his perceived role as a spoiler in the 2000 election, nearly two-thirds of Democrats polled opposed Nader's decision to run, while around 50% of Republicans approved of his candidature. The message is loud and clear: a vote for Nader may help Bush to achieve his second term.

All the people mentioned so far are very worthy. I'm finding it extremely difficult to pick just one person. I suppose I tend to admire courage in the face of extreme adversity. Given that, a few names spring to mind: Dietrich Bonhoeffer, Nelson Mandela and Gandhi. I'll plump for Mandela, a man who emerged from prison after over 20 years incarceration at the hands of a brutal and unjust system who holds no bitterness. He is an example to us all.