The Blog

Monica Luppi: An Open Letter to Sir Richard Branson

2012-02-23T00:00:00Z

Dear Mr. Branson,

I have watched you speak on various television shows about your views on drugs and have read the blog where you cite Portugal as a positive example of how successful decriminalisation could be if applied worldwide. I won't go into dissecting the evidence you and the Global Commission cite to support your point of view (there's enough of that around already), because mine is not a rebuttal, but an appeal to dig deeper, and perhaps to put your words into concrete actions that could make a positive impact on many lives.

As someone who has worked for over a decade closely with people fighting addiction in order to regain their lives, to beat the odds society has given them by overcoming myriad personal challenges, I felt your remarks were based more on a political ideology than firsthand knowledge of the problem.

Your flippant remarks about "75% of your children's generation smoking cannabis" simply saddened me. Mr. Branson, not everyone has the social and economic safety net that you and your friends have. Many more fragile and vulnerable people are listening to your remarks and will fall through the cracks. Wouldn't your considerable wealth and visibility be better spent advocating for real and sustainable rehabilitation programs or funding community based prevention projects for marginalised youth, instead of sending a message that legitimises an unhealthy lifestyle and does nothing to improve the lives of those suffering from addiction?

I have no doubt you believe what you are saying about drugs and, I can agree that prison is no place for an addict. People suffering from addiction deserve the best help they can get. They deserve the support necessary to live lives just as valuable and fulfilling as your or mine. They need real, long lasting and sustainable support through education, life skills training, and counseling, so they can become active and contributing members of society. Removing accountability for their actions will not help. Of the thousands of former users I have worked with and come to love, I can guarantee that facing the negative consequences of their actions, even those that involved the criminal justice system, very often provided a wake up call, the "push" that was needed to turn their lives around.

Mr. Branson, let me ask you a few questions: How many desperate mothers of addicts have you listened to? How many times have you taken an addict into your home and nursed him back to health, taking the time to understand him? Have you met with many who have lost all their money and possessions while a family member struggled through years of drug abuse? Have you spoken with any recovered addicts to better understand the dynamics which brought them to use drugs and the key to helping them find a better life?

I know you are a busy man, but I would like to invite you to come visit the center where I work. It is called San Patrignano, in Italy. I am sure you know that our country has some of the most progressive policies in Europe when it comes to providing for alternatives to prison in cases of drug related crime. Many of the over 1,000 residents that are getting help here would otherwise be in prison. Our services are provided free of charge and we are not funded by the taxpayers but by private donors and earnings from our social enterprises. Perhaps your opinions on drug policy are unchangeable, but I urge you to get the complete picture before getting on the proverbial soapbox again, as there are many lives in the balance. Our doors are open to you.

Christopher Simon Sykes: The Other Side of Marie Colvin

2012-02-23T00:00:00Z

John Witherow, Marie Colvin's editor, recently said this of her: "she was much more than a war reporter. She was a woman with a tremendous joie de vivre, full of humour and mischief and surrounded by a large circle of friends, all of whom feared the consequences of her bravery."
I was one of those friends, who never ceased to worry about what might one day happen to her.

Jane Bonham-Carter, one of Marie's closest friends, has just told me that she had spoken to Marie recently. She was in Beirut and was desperately trying to find a way into Homs. No amount of persuasion on the part of Jane, that it was madness and so dangerous, could sway her resolve. She had to do what she had to do, so she went, and last night sent the most moving despatch to Channel 4 News about the plight of the largely civilian population trapped in a small enclave in the city, with shells raining down upon them at the rate of 10 per minute, shells which had just mortally wounded a small baby that Marie saw die before her eyes, and which a few hours later would bring to an end her own brave life.

When my son called to tell me this morning, having heard the news on the internet, I was utterly devastated, miserable that she was taken from us, angry that she had courted death, but also certain that if she had to go, then this was they she would have wanted it, in the course of her powerful duty to pass on to the rest of the world a first-hand account of the atrocities being committed by the Assad regime. Perhaps her face being on the front page of every newspaper in the world will make those in power think again about taking some action against this tyranny.

Marie was incredibly famous, but you would never have known it. She never banged on about her work. You had to prize stories out of her, usually late at hight after many glasses of wine. The Marie I knew was an incredibly warm and affectionate woman, with a throaty voice, an infectious laugh and a great joie de vivre whose company one really looked forward to sharing.

I was lucky enough three years ago to spend a whole ten days with her on a sailing boat, travelling down the coast of Turkey. Marie had always loved sailing since she was a young girl, but had recently taken it up again as a form of therapy after suffering a major nervous breakdown, the eventual result of years spent under fire, during which time she had lost an eye in a mortar attack in Sri Lanka.

She took to Ocean Racing, another way of finding the adrenalin fix she missed from the battlefield. With her then partner, Richard Flaye, she had a share in a yacht, and myself and my wife Isabella, were lucky enough to be invited to join them and the journalists, Andrew and Leslie Cockburn, for a holiday. Richard was very much in charge. Marie always referred to him as 'Cap'n Flaye' and did exactly what he told her to do with the traditional "Aye, Aye, Cap'n". Even when he shouted at her, as Captains are wont to do when things go wrong and they need someone to blame, she would meekly do as she was told, never arguing. It was as if sailing gave her an opportunity to revert to being a child again, to relinquish command to someone else rather than having to constantly take decisions herself as she would have to do on the battlefield. The years fell away and she looked just like a teenager.

Of course she was incredibly efficient, and was delighted to find in my wife another woman who was capable of quickly learning how to tie the different knots and learn their names and the names of all the different sails, tasks at which the rest of us were utterly useless and made us objects of contempt to the Captain.

However... I did manage to score some considerable brownie points, and even, to my eternal delight, gain the admiration of Marie. Being a reasonably efficient cook, and wanting to get out of the way of the Captain as much as possible, I took on the role of 'Galley Monkey' and established myself as ship's cook in the tiniest galley you could imagine, in which there was scarcely room to swing a rat, let alone a cat, and from here I produced three meals a day. This astonished Marie and also delighted her, as it freed her from having to do it herself. "I'd rather be under fire, than have to spend all day in there she said," and with that I felt I'd passed whatever test was necessary to go up in her admiration. From then on I was always 'Midshipman Sykes' to her.

I will never forget Marie. In all my 63 years she was one of the funniest, self-deprecating, bravest and most affectionate friends I have ever had, and because of the manner in which she died, selflessly broadcasting news of the plight of the Syrian people to the bitter end, she will be remembered by millions.

Mark Seddon: Vladimir Putin: A Man Who Believes He Is President in Waiting

2012-02-23T00:00:00Z

Make no mistake, Vladimir Putin's blog, published today on The Huffington Post, is a very clear statement of intent from a man who believes that he is president in waiting. It is also one from a man who knows that his first term in office as president is largely remembered as a period when Russian military pride began to be restored after the self immolation of the Soviet Union.

When I was a teenager, the military of the Soviet Union and its Warsaw Pact allies were stationed roughly as Winston Churchill famously predicted they would be when he talked in 1945 of an "iron curtain falling across Europe"; from "Stettin in the Baltic, to Trieste in the Adriatic".

The Soviet fleet straddled the globe, and Moscow could count on sturdy allies from Angola to Somalia, Cuba to Vietnam, and often with the deep water bases to go with them. Up until 1989, Warsaw Pact forces faced its Nato opponents across a divided Germany, whose borders were those created from the ashes of the Second World War.

When Vladimir Putin promises to build a professional army earmarking 23 trillion Roubles to do so over the next decade, he is at last doing what many in NATO always thought would be the logical step for the Russian military to take.

Clearly the days of the conscript army are drawing to a close, and Putin sees the need for a professional army that is equipped with modern equipment and which is able to move swiftly in a new global disorder which he refers to as "new areas of instability and deliberately managed chaos". Where Western political and military leaders may take fright is when Putin refers to "determined attempts are being made to provoke such conflicts even close to Russia's and its allies borders".

There can be no mistaking the fact that Putin is referring directly to, amongst others, Russia's long time ally, Syria, especially when he goes on to say that "the basic principles of international law are being degraded and eroded especially in terms of international security". There is no question that Russia, along with China, is deeply suspicious of anything that pertains to 'humanitarian interventionism', believing, post Iraq, that this is cover for further US expansionism.

If there is conflict it comes in the juxtaposition of Putin's statement that in a "world of upheaval there is always the temptation to resolve one's problems at another's expense through pressure and force". But then he goes on to make it clear that the country under his leadership would not allow Russia's interests to be threatened, when he says that "It is no surprise that some are calling for resources of global significance to be freed from the exclusive sovereignty of one nations". This says Putin "cannot happen to Russia, not even hypothetically."

Yet Putin speaks a language that few Western politicians would be brave enough to admit to, when he says: "The huge resources invested in modernising our military industrial complex... must serve as fuel to feed the engines of modernisation and growth". If Stalin had his belching steel mills and Stakhavonite workers, the brave Russia of Putin's future will have it's anti-missile factories and aerospace defence industries.

All of this, says Putin has to be done in order to "develop our economy and strengthen our democratic institutions". The trouble is that Putin's attachment to democracy is largely based on him winning elections, never losing them. Of all the arguments that Russia's President uses to justify his next great leap forward, this seems to be the least believable.

Mark Seddon is the former UN Correspondent for Al Jazeera English TV

Shari Arison: Think Good, Speak Good, Do Good

2012-02-23T00:00:00Z

What is "Doing Good"?

Doing Good is a simple and universal vision. A vision to which each and every one of us can connect and contribute to its realisation. A vision based on the belief that by doing good deeds, positive thinking and affirmative choice of words, feelings and actions, we can enhance goodness in the world.

These past years have proven to us that old patterns can no longer suffice. Many of us are experiencing a phase of change, shedding outdated patterns and liberating ourselves from the old by moving on to the new. The year 2012 is an important one for mankind, a pivotal year. The potential for this exists in the mere fact that the majority of us are yearning for change. But in order for such change to actually take place, a critical mass of people is required, driven by the energy of goodness and candid goodwill for change, since only such an enormous quantity of people who think good, speak good and do good - can generate the essential change in the state of mankind as a whole.

But, in order to bring about such change, we must realise that maintaining old patterns is detrimental and cannot lead us towards the positive change to which we all aspire. As I see it, change should express itself in the creation of a new reality that emphasises the dominant values of unity, love, friendship, and compassion, and, most of all - the capacity for containment, encompassing the ability to accept ourselves and others, with our differences and uniquenesses.

Six years ago in Israel, I initiated Good Deeds Day. My initiative was based on my solid belief that each and every one of us can give of ourselves for the benefit of others, according to our own skills and abilities. Everyone can do a good deed and contribute to the community in which they live. All that is required for participating in Good Deeds Day is goodwill and the understanding that even smiling at someone is a good deed. The idea is simple and since it's easy to do a good deed, the circles grow and grow.

Over the years, Good Deeds Day has annually gained greater popularity, spreading beyond geographical boundaries to include many more countries worldwide. International Good Deeds Day has become a global annual tradition of giving. Last year, we were overwhelmed by the enormous response of people in Israel and around the globe who joined in to do a good deed for the benefit of others, and this year we anticipate that these circles will continue to grow as new communities join us.

Good Deeds Day serves as an example of how our world can look all year round, not only on a single day. If we adopt the Good Deeds Day values and its modes of action throughout the year, I am certain we can create that critical mass of people to bring about the essential change in our world.

For this year's International Good Deeds Day, upcoming on 25 March, I would like to invite each and every one to do a good deed benefitting the life of another, making someone else happy. You know, as well as I do too, that such a good deed will also improve your own life and will make you happy, knowing that you contributed to making our world a better place. Together, out of goodwill and faith in our ability, we can create a lasting and real change, for us and for our future generations.

Rosslyn McNair: Are Britain's Children 'Culture Starved'?

2012-02-23T00:00:00Z

A recent survey declared that Britain's children are "culture starved" with 50% of parents leaving their child's cultural enrichment to their school and a quarter of them having never taken their child to the theatre.

Now as a child, my weekend was simply not complete if I hadn't held a prolific collection of Wedgwood ceramics in my confused little gaze, or run screaming around a Capability Brown garden at the back of a National Trust house. By the time I was nine, I knew who Munch, Pollock, Van Der Meer and Renoir were and by the time I was 11, I knew that I didn't understand any of them.

My mother rammed culture down my throat with the same mania she shoved broccoli and University Challenge down and it is now that I realise how grateful I am that she dragged me kicking and screaming to all those galleries and theatres. This early cultural exposure really helped me at school, in particular when required to spectacularly bluff my way out of situations I wasn't really paying attention to. Question on Austen? Flick back to the memory of hopscotching as an eight-year-old over Jane Austen's gravestone and you're sorted.

Personally I believe that to have an interest in culture is to have an interest in something beyond the four walls of your own life. Parents have a responsibility to expose their children to as many opportunities for new experiences as they can before their child realises they can conscientiously object and just watch BBC iPlayer instead. Schools are too constrained by the curriculum they must follow and the exams they must pass to stray far from the prescribed material into the realms of mind expansion. Only a parent can provide the time, money and effort it takes to give a child the cultural upbringing that will ultimately make them far better conversationalists at dinner parties.

But, having said that, I understand that there are three things that hold parents back from taking their children to galleries and museums etc. Namely: time, money and effort. If parents work full time or have other necessary commitments then filling the weekend with velour curtains and gilded picture frames is not going to be at the top of the priority list. This is particularly understandable when you consider that children and culture tend to go together as smoothly as IKEA furniture. In the same way you would seriously think about taking a toddler on a long haul flight, thus a production of Hamlet deserves the same consideration. For a parent it can be extremely stressful to take your children out anywhere, let alone somewhere fundamentally aimed at 'grown ups'.

But besides this emotional consideration there is also the practicality that culture does not come cheap. West End theatre prices on average are about £60, a National Trust family ticket can be up to £30 and even something more accessible like the cinema is still an expensive family outing. Culture is a luxury and as such it doesn't surprise me that parents are apathetic towards its necessity for their children.

But I do think that there are good alternatives to having to actually stroke the Mona Lisa's face that parents can do to encourage an interest in culture amongst their children. The most practical of which is, of course, the internet. The arrival of the 'virtual tour' means that sites such as the Sistine Chapel, the Parthenon and the Houses of Parliament can all be accessed for free in the safety of your own living room. A flick through Google can bring up art and literature, Youtube can bring science experiments, concerts and theatre. Are they as good as seeing the real things? Probably not, but they are excellent substitutes for parents lacking the time and resources and take the pressure off schools to be the sole educational provider.

Although being "culture starved" might seem a triviality when there are children in the world actually being starved, I believe that having a general knowledge of the world about you is so important, not only for the box ticking of one's education, but for one's general existence. Everyone should have culture rammed down their throat by their mothers then decide themselves to either digest it or throw it up.

After all it's got to be better than broccoli...

Jo Verrent: Can an Epileptic Seizure Be Art?

2012-02-23T00:00:00Z

A crowded library, a collection of artists, ethicists, scientists and others, and a sense of expectation. We are taking part in a Live Art Development Agency Study Room Gathering to discuss the work of Rita Marcalo and the development of a new piece based on her epilepsy, ElectroEncefaloGame.

Rita wishes to present her convulsing body as art to an audience, and ultimately, through this, to herself. She is a dancer, has trained for years to control and express herself through the medium of her body and the way in which it moves. When she experiences seizures, her body moves, but in a way in which she cannot control. It is this shift of control that Rita is exploring, and through it, her own identity - as dancer, as human, as Rita. But would you buy a ticket to watch?

As our invitation states: since 2009 choreographer Rita Marcalo has been working on a trilogy of works focusing on her relationship to her epilepsy. The first two works were Involuntary Dances (2009) and She's Lost Control (2010 and still touring), and she is currently working on ElectroEncefaloGame. She has invited us to this gathering to discuss, and advise her on, this third and final instalment of the trilogy.

Why? Why not? Artists have been using themselves as material for centuries. It is only natural that someone with artistic curiosity would wish to apply it to themselves, to different aspects of their identity. Also present in the room were Franko B whose work for many years involved using his blood and bloodletting, Brian Lobel who has created a diverse range of work based on his experiences with cancer, and Martin O'Brien whose work often addresses his experiences of his Cystic Fibrosis. This wasn't simply some strange gathering of artists as egos, the people curated by Rita Marcalo and Lois Keidan of the Live Art Development Agency had serious intent. And the four-hour discussion covered serious territory:

• What are the layered intentions behind the piece? Which is most important?
• What are the roles of, and for, the audience?
• Where are the ethical boundaries and responsibilities?
• Who has power and who has control?
• What is safe and how do we define that? Safe for whom?
• How can such work best be contextualized? How can this best be shared?
• Which public conversations around the work should one respond to and engage with?
• How can one allow those conversations to shape and influence the work? Should we?

I'm there as I reviewed Involuntary Dances and recently wrote about the Live Art Development Association's Access all Areas programme event focusing on disability and live art.

I am new to live art and slightly both fearful and in awe. There is no arrogance, no desire to confound. On confessing my feelings, Brian Lobel invites me to see his work and attend a workshop in which he explains and explores with doctors in training to encourage them to see whole people and not simply ill bodies.

The Live Art Development Agency also work to try to 'demystify' Live Art and open it up to all kinds of new audiences. Their free-to-all Study Room contains a wealth of research material on Live Art, including an extensive collection of books and DVDs on Live Art and Disability. Last year they also produced a specially commissioned Study Room Guide written by Aaron Williamson, Disability and New Artistic Models that provides me with a rich context in which to wade.

The Agency will also be producing a publication based on the Access All Areas programme in Spring 2012, featuring documentation of a huge range of Live Art by disabled artists as well as articles, essays and reflections on some of the ways that Live Art can explore complicated issues around disability in radical and innovative ways. This will give us all further insight and will feature Rita Marcalo's Involuntary Dances: Correspondence, a collection of fascinating texts written by, and to, her in response to the first part of her trilogy. I'm hoping it includes mention of the Daily Mail's coverage and the vitriolic comments it provoked - interesting stuff about who is allowed to do what in our society.

So can an epileptic seizure be art? Of course. As can not having a seizure. As can the hinterland between having and not having. In this developing piece, Rita is interested in exploring a way of mapping her brainwaves so that she and we (as audience) can see the progression towards seizure, if such a progression occurs.

Making visible the invisible. Sharing unique perspectives. Examining questions to which one genuinely doesn't know the answers. For me, this truly is the function of art.

I'll buy a ticket to that.

Kelly Hoppen: All Change

2012-02-23T00:00:00Z

Well we've made it through the first month of 2012 and entered the year of the Dragon!

I'm sure many of you set New Year's resolutions to kick off 2012 the right way and I hope you're achieving the goals you've set for yourself. I'm not big on New Year's resolutions but one thing I have done for the last couple of years is look at incorporating Feng Shui into my work space and home. Like most of you I spend a lot of time in the office so my space needs to be one that inspires me. I have always been interested in Eastern philosophy so a few years ago I met with Richard Ashworth to look at how I could incorporate the philosophy of Feng Shui into my office space.

I've learned so much from Richard about how to make my space the best it can be. Energy is central to the philosophy of Feng Shui and I was surprised to learn that energy changes year to year so you need to move furniture (and sometimes people) to get the most positive environment to create in.

I know there may be skeptics out there but for me, having his advice has made a real difference for me and my business! At the start of every year I have Richard look at the studio and my office to see what needs to be changed to make the most of the next 12 months.

It turns out that according to Richard, 2012 is a year of sudden change at Kelly Hoppen Interiors. I can certainly vouch for that already. Just take a look at my new collection from Graham & Brown which now features reds, mauves and other colours that are anything but neutral. I'm still the Queen of Taupe but in my collections I've been really been inspired by colour this season.

To keep this spark of creativity flowing Richard suggested I move my desk so that I'm facing south (a great way to get the most of the natural sunlight!) and add a bit more greenery to my space by putting plants on my window sill. Also, in a nod to the year of the Dragon I painted one wall in my new red paint while keeping other walls in the space white.

It might just be a coincidence but the name of this glorious new paint colour is actually "Red Dragon"! It's what I call a calm red and it's meant to subdue your mood and make you feel war rather than a fiery angry red which gets your pulse racing. When I create colours for my collection I'm thinking about moods and feelings, not just the pantone!

When I walked in to my office in the morning I'm overwhelmed at how amazing the room feels. Everything has changed with a simple splash of colour. I may be the Queen of Taupe but this red has made me feel incredibly happy and full of new energy to make 2012 the best year yet.

Mayowa Anthea Adebiyi: It's Not Just the Fashion Industry Who Need to Wake Up to Plus-Size Models

2012-02-23T00:00:00Z

If it's not a magazine featuring "the best and worst celebrity beach bodies", it's an article promoting the latest fad diet that will allow you to drop a dress size in two weeks. Women's bodies are seen throughout media and often glorified as the epitome of beauty when displayed in their thin and youthful form. Already as a society we have embraced these standards of beauty which are imposed on women to the extent that female celebrities who do not conform to these standards are often criticised for slipping or leading an unhealthy lifestyle.

According to Jean Kilbourne (feminist author, speaker, and filmmaker) media imagery of extremely thin women means that the bodies of everyday women have become invisible to mass media. As a result many women are adopting these stereotypes and judging themselves by society's standards of beauty. This teaches women to compare themselves to other women and compete with them for male attention.

The earlier years of our life are when we are more receptive to our surroundings and we pick up a better understanding of the way the world works and the way things should be. Media and advertising is a powerful tool as it works to provoke a certain emotion or way of thinking amongst those that are receptive to it. As a young girl I often experienced this battle between my image and what was by society's standards 'normal' or 'beautiful' - particularly as friends and family around me had embraced these ideals. I started dieting and meal skipping at the age of eight years old. During puberty I developed a voluptuous hour glass figure which I constantly tried to combat through excessive exercise and extreme diets. That desire to be thin was to me a sense of perfection that would bring me happiness and contentment.

As I grew older and endured various experiences I developed confidence in my own skin and embraced my individuality. The level of contentment and happiness I began to achieve by changing the way I thought was a revelation in itself. Essentially we create our happiness and make informed decisions about who we want to be - not society. It was only by chance that during this time of self-discovery I embraced the phenomenon that was plus-size modeling. The 'if you were skinny you could be a model' comments just weren't cutting it.

As a model I have been working to demonstrate what diversity could bring for the fashion industry and how it can inspire women to embrace their own bodies and also feel stylish. I've participated in campaigns such as 'Models of Diversity' which celebrate just that. Additionally there have been a range of other campaigns designed to tackle the diversity issue with some resulting in slight changes in the industry and others little at all.

Unfortunately a lot of us, as members of the public (women and men) have embraced these beauty standards for so long that even we have hit out against campaigns for diverse models in advertising. It's either a vicious battle between skinny vs. curvy or a dictation of which size is healthy or not. The work is not only with the fashion industry - it is also with our mentalities. This is why I have now set up The Red Alert Youth Beauty Campaign - a campaign which helps young women to develop confidence and embrace their individuality.

The campaign will aim to provide young women with guidance and the opportunity to express and relate through creativity including expert advice, inspirational messages, fantastic poetry, great music, and letters. Additionally we will be looking to arrange events and activities that unite young women as well as pushing for educational support within schools. Perhaps if we teach young girls to separate their reality from media standards of beauty, then we may achieve some crucial steps in this on-going battle.

Dr. Leon Moosavi: The Fight Against Islamophobia Steps up a Gear

2012-02-23T00:00:00Z

A new service has been launched this week enabling Muslims to report anti-Muslim discrimination. The initiative by Faith Matters must be applauded and can be a milestone in challenging Islamophobia.

Over the past four years, my own research about Islamophobia has highlighted the need to recognise and challenge Islamophobia. This is evidenced in the growth of the far right across Europe over the last 10 years and more disturbingly, the increasing tendency for their Islamophobic rhetoric to be replicated in the mainstream. For example, a recent poll showed that 45% of Britons are not ashamed to admit that they think there are 'too many' Muslims in Britain. Numerous other studies also suggest similar widespread suspicion and dislike of Muslims.

And these attitudes are not just privately held grudges. They can materialise aggressively, such as in the instances in recent years when Muslim victims have been left paralysed, blinded and brain damaged, have been beaten to death and have seen their mosques subjected to arson attacks. These disturbing and often ignored attacks are also found in other European countries such as in France where Muslim war graves were recently desecrated and in Switzerland where dead pigs were recently left on a mosque site.

Remarkably, some people are still in denial about the prevalence of Islamophobia, even going as far as suggesting that Islamophobia is a myth. The new service will help quash any misconceptions about Islamophobia not existing by producing statistical data on the nature of Islamophobia in Britain. Victims will be able to classify their experiences as one of six types: extreme violence, assault, damage of property, threats, abusive behaviour, and propagation of anti-Muslim literature. Details will also emerge of where in the country Islamophobia is most prominent so authorities can concentrate their campaigns most effectively.

I expect the service to confirm what Muslims are already well aware of; that Islamophobia exists and has serious implications. Muslims know this because of everyday experiences which involve being mocked, abused or harassed to different degrees, solely on account of their faith.

Although minorities tend not to report hate crime due to a belief that reporting such incidents will be fruitless, Muslims should be encouraged to utilise this new service so that the presence of Islamophobia can be made starkly clear.

This quantifying is a vital step forward in combating Islamophobia, which is an urgent cause since allowing Islamophobia to flourish can have harmful consequences. For instance, widespread Islamophobia not only means that a large section of society is unfairly demonised and marginalised, but its presence can also alienate Muslims and discourage them from feeling they can contribute to wider society. When such a hostile climate is left unchallenged, extremist and intolerant ideas have more chance of alluring some disaffected Muslims.

This new initiative can be a turning point that marks a shift from Islamophobia only ever being recorded as racism. It can be a moment when the on-going efforts of community leaders and activists to have Islamophobia recognised as a distinct form of prejudice can be achieved. It may assist in recognising Islamophobia as a unique form of prejudice just as anti-semitism is recognised. To this end, the new service parallels the efforts of the Community Security Trust in monitoring anti-semitism and regularly releasing revealing data. If Faith Matters can produce data that is as insightful, they will be doing a great service to society.

While the reporting and monitoring of Islamophobic incidents is long overdue and can be a major leap forward, it must also be coupled with proactive efforts by people of all faiths to engage in dialogue to overcome the ignorance that unnecessarily pushes people apart. Muslims therefore not only have an obligation to speak up and report Islamophobia, but also to be courageous in explaining what Islam actually means to them so that Islamophobic misconceptions cannot continue to circulate.

Islamophobic incidents can be reported to the new service via the following means:

Freephone: 0800 456 1226

SMS: 0115 707 00 07

E-mail: info@tellmamauk.org

Website: www.tellmamauk.org

Twitter: @tellmamauk

Facebook: tellmamauk

Katie Hickman: Cora Pearl: Bringing One of the World's Most Famous Courtesans Back to the Grosvenor Hotel

2012-02-23T00:00:00Z

Biographers are not supposed to admit having a favourite subject - it's a bit like asking a parent to confess having a favourite child - but I have to confess that there is one of my subjects for whom I've always had a special fondness. Cora Pearl: one of the world's great courtesans.

An Englishwoman by birth, Cora became one of the wealthiest and most famous women of the 19th century France. In her own country, however, she was never so well appreciated. On her only trip home, in 1871 during the Franco-Prussian war, hoping to be re-united with an exiled lover, Prince Napoleon, Cora tried to book a suite of rooms at the Grosvenor Hotel, the grandest of London's great railway hotels. She was recognised and humiliatingly thrown out.

I wonder what she would have made of the fact that this week in her honour, the hotel, based in Victoria, London, is about to open an luxurious Cora Pearl Suite, 'The Courtesan's Boudoir', the jewel in the crown of an recent 18 million pound refurbishment.

Although many of Cora's fellow 'Grandes Horizontales' are forgotten figures now, she herself was so flamboyant that many stories about her are still remembered. When an admirer sent her £1000 of orchids, she had them strewn across the floor and danced a hornpipe on top of them. She died her hair blue - and her dog to match. She filled her bath with vintage champagne and invited her admirers to watch her at her ablutions. On another occasion she is said to have had herself served up, naked, on a silver salver, the piece de resistance of one of her own dinners.

Who wouldn't enjoy these stories? Theatricality and extravagance were always Cora's trademark (and who knows, some of the legends about her might even be true) but they are not the reason I've always found her so intriguing. Far more interesting to me has always been the fact that an obscure and friendless young girl, only moderately good-looking, from a humble English background, was able to pull off such an extraordinary feat.

Sexiness and availability were never enough to succeed as a courtesan. Cora was also an extremely good business woman. At the height of her success she was said to have earned over 50,000 francs a month (£90,000). She owned several houses in Paris, a chateau, a world-famous stable; her jewels alone were worth over a million francs. Cora was one of the first women in Paris to wear couture (she was an early patron of Worth); make-up; lingerie. Best of all - and I speak as an Englishwoman - she bested the French at their own game.

As Cora's biographer I was invited to visit Guoman hotel's 'Cora Pearl Suite' in the last weeks of the refurbishment. Walking up the grand staircase, its columns painstakingly stripped back to their magnificent marble and gilt originals, I realised that I was seeing the hotel almost exactly as Cora might have seen it, had she not been so humiliatingly turned away. It struck me then just how far we've come; and that the very reasons Cora was turned away from The Grosvenor, back in 1871, are the very reasons that the hotel can now celebrate its most 'infamous would-be former guest.'

We no longer view Cora Pearl as a figure to be feared and shunned, to be hidden away from 'respectable' society. What we see instead are her intelligence and wit, her enormous sense of style, her independence of mind. She is, paradoxically, a strikingly modern figure: a woman who had the courage to be completely and wholly herself.

"Did I think Cora would have liked it?" I was asked as I entered the room. I looked round at the sumptuous silver and eau-de-nil boudoir, at the silk drapes, the orchids, ostrich feathers and erotic prints; gazed up at the enormous portrait of the lady herself hanging over the bed, poised as though giving her own personal benediction to whatever antics the thought of her might inspire on the velvety coverlets below.

Would Cora have liked it? Sacre Bleu! She must be laughing in her grave.

The Courtesan's Boudoir - The Cora Pearl Suite, in Guoman Hotels' Grosvenor Hotel, Victoria, London, is available for public booking from March.

Lorna Fitzsimons: Iran Through the Optics of Iraq

2012-02-23T00:00:00Z

It is difficult not to see the looming crisis on Iran through any other optics other than our experience in Iraq. So much of the commentary on the left is falling into this trap. "We got it wrong on WMD in Iraq so we can't and shouldn't believe what we are told on Iran."

Yes, we should all be more exacting in the questions we ask after the painful lessons from the flawed intelligence on Iraq. But if this means we fail to take the threat of Iran seriously we will be making a terrible mistake. The memories of Iraq are fuelling some basic misconceptions over Iran that need to be cleared up. We are not and should not 'sleep walk' into a war, but if we take the military option off the table, we may paradoxically bring a conflict closer.

Is the threat exaggerated, just like in Iraq?

This is not like Iraq, where our assessment of the threat was based on hazy intelligence. Many of the unacceptable Iranian activities, such as uranium enrichment, are happening in the plain sight of IAEA inspectors, following their exposure by Iranian opposition groups and Western intelligence agencies in 2002. Intelligence evidence of many other aspects of the programme, such as weaponisation, were studies by the IAEA for years before the agency declared the evidence 'credible' in its November 2011 report.

I am not one of those who think Iran is irrational. On the contrary, their pursuit of nuclear weapons is a highly calculated strategy to maximise their power in the region. But the fact that they are rational does not make their programme benign.

Iran's already sponsors radicalism and terror not only throughout the Middle East but across the world from South America to Asia. They already position themselves as a pillar of resistance against Western influence in the Middle East, against the Middle East peace process and against any international attempts to resolve the crisis in Syria. They already call for Israel's destruction and provide the arms and money for extremist groups on Israel's borders to perpetuate the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. They already hope to bully and intimidate their Gulf Arab neighbours into accepting their regional leadership and turning away from their alliances with the West. The acquisition of nuclear weapons capability, in bald defiance of American and international, will only further enhance their capacity to advance this dangerous agenda.

William Hague has been clear on this issue since long before his time as Foreign Secretary. He sees the threat from the perspective of Iran's Gulf Arab neighbours. They are among the countries most immediately threatened by Iran. Hague understands also that British national interests are directly affected. Look at the percentage of inward investment into Britain from the Gulf. Just think what would happen to those trade interests if a nuclear armed Iran, for whom Britain is the 'little satan', became the dominant power in the region.

Our government also knows that the Iranian threat is real. There is no significant difference in assessment between Britain, the US and Israel. If anything, the UK shares Israel's concerns that the US has tended to understate how advanced Iran's programme is.

Are we sleepwalking into a war?

Today, the US and Europe have a well-coordinated policy of squeezing Iran through crippling sanctions. The decision for the West to give up that track and resort to military action will ultimately be an American one. Of the Western powers, only they have the military capacity to seriously degrade Iran's nuclear programme.

Obama understands the scale of the Iranian threat and sees it in a wider context. His vision of a nuclear weapons free world was the subject of his first international speech in Prague in 2009. In recent months he has been clear that the US will not allow a nuclear Iran.

We cannot underestimate his capacity to take decisive military action. In the last chapter of Bob Woodward's brilliant book on the Obama decision making process on the Afghan surge, Woodward asks Tom Donilon what he has learnt about his President. Donilon said that the president thinks if you are patient and resolute then others will come round to your thinking. This is an indication of his single mindedness.

He made the decision on the hit on Bin Laden when others would not take the risk and he allows the repetitive use of lethal force by US drones even in sovereign Pakistani territory. We know from recent statements from US officials that preparations have been ongoing under his administration for a credible military option against Iran.

But if Obama decides to take military action it will not be for lack of attention or through carelessness. It will be an act of clear rational assessment of costs and balances, in the knowledge that no choice, including the choice to do nothing, is cost free.

We also know that the US believes Israel does not have the capability to do a military operation well enough. Their assessment is that Israel could not reach all the relevant sites and could only set the programme back a few years. The US could do a much more comprehensive job. For that reason the US does not want Israel to launch a military strike. But at the same time they do not want to be pushed by Israel into a decision on military action in an election year.

Can Israel be persuaded to wait?

No one in Israel is gung ho for action. It will be Israeli citizens who will have to take cover in bomb shelters as Iran and its allies retaliate with thousands of rockets on Israeli towns and cities. But the noise coming from Israeli officials shows that they are losing patience. Israel's sense of urgency comes from a fully understandable feeling of dread at what the region will look like for them with a nuclear armed Iran.

What's making Israel particularly jittery right now is that key aspects of Iran's programme are moving towards what Israeli Defence Minister Ehud Barak calls a 'zone of immunity', meaning the point at which Israeli weaponry will no longer be able to damage them. Iran is already starting to operate an underground uranium enrichment facility in Fordow which may be impossible for Israel to bomb.

After that point, the better equipped US forces may still have a viable military option, but Israel does not like to leave key questions about its security in the hands of others, even its closest allies. Israel knows if it were to go it alone the risks would be enormous and the impact on the programme less than if the US were to act. But Israel has a deeply ingrained political culture of self-reliance.

It is a lesson Israelis take from Jewish history. They should never rely on others to defend them. Even if an Israeli strike only sets the Iranian programme back a few years, they may reason that this could buy time for other developments which undermine the Iranian regime.

That we have reached a point at which Israel may feel the need to act alone, without warning, indicates that we have not acted decisively enough before now. The severity of the sanctions is now catching up with the severity of the problem, but it is late in the day. Asking Israel to wait through 2012 and see if the sanctions will work means asking them to potentially give up their capacity for independent action.

It is not clear if Israel would warn the US in advance if it were to launch a military strike. It could inform the US what it is about to do in the hope that the US will step in. But this risks the US telling Israel flatly not to do it. Israel might be willing to act without an explicit US 'green light', but it is much harder to act in the face of an explicit demand from the US to stop.

Should we be taking the military option off the table?

The conclusion this leads to is that if we want to remain in control of the situation, we need to be absolutely clear in our determination that we will not allow Iran the capability for nuclear weapons. We need to be equally clear that we will consider all means, including military means.

If Israeli leaders suspect that the rest of the world is going to duck its responsibility, it is more likely to conclude that it has to act alone, despite the consequences. Equally concerning, is that if our Gulf allies think we are going to abandon them whilst Iran get nuclear weapons they are going to start considering whether they need to appease the playground bully. And if Iran hears that military action is not an option, they are going to be encouraged to hold out against the sanctions, in the belief that once they reach nuclear armed status, they will be able to negotiate with the world from a position of strength.

Iran, therefore, is not Iraq. To maintain the best chance of preventing a conflict, we need to keep all our options very much available.

Samuel Kasumu: Youth Unemployment Needs a More Radical Response

2012-02-23T00:00:00Z

The government has announced £126 million worth of contracts available to companies and charities to tackle the challenge of long term unemployed young people. Whilst I welcome the announcement, I must say that the jury is still out on whether this government fully understands the ramifications of long term youth unemployment.

This announcement has come nearly two years into their term in power and the fact is that youth unemployment has been a key challenge for many years. The government continues to fail to demonstrate any urgency within this area, and some would argue it's probably because they do not understand the potential political power that these young people will have during the 2015 general elections.

The new contracts are part of the larger Youth Contract that was announced in December and will see funding for up 50,000 young people across the UK. Organisations will be paid by results, which gives financial incentives to the organisations to deliver. The theory is that if the contractors do well they will get paid well, but of course the reality is not that simple. As we have seen by previous contracts of this nature, payment by results will mean that some organisations cut corners to ensure they make enough money to survive. It also means smaller organisations and charities simply will not be able to compete to win any of these contracts at all.

Ultimately, these contracts will go to very large companies that arguably have little connection with the people they are being paid to serve. At the very best; smaller charities may be able to come in as sub-contractors, but it is highly unlikely that they'll be paid anywhere near what they will need to be paid to deliver something of real value. I have personally seen this happen and I must say it is a shame to see such a thing during a time when we speak of an ideal 'Big Society' where community groups are part of any response to rebuilding their communities. It is wrong and this system needs to be made much fairer going forward.

Over a million young people are unemployed so why does Nick Clegg and co think that providing funding for 50,000 places does the trick? The £6 billion Work Programme contracts have been designed in a way that means contractors can engage with as many people as they want and will be paid based on the assumption that any costs would be much cheaper than the long term consequences of someone staying on benefits. Surely any of these youth initiatives should work on the same basis as the Work Programme. If someone can get one million young people back into work I'd say good luck to them and go for it. The contracts should have been open ended in this respect - and by the way, why is there only a focus on 16- to 17-year-olds with this most recent announcement?

I have a big problem with the lack of focus on graduate unemployment. It is simply not fair in this age of fairness to see graduates leave with spiralling dept and returning to either be unemployed or underemployed. And then of course there are race and geographic inequalities that must be considered. 50% of African Caribbean young people are unemployed in comparison to a national average of 20% and we know that some areas are unemployment hotspots across the country. This is a big deal and the new announcements should have been a lot more radical and targeted than it was.

This all sounds very negative, and the truth is that I welcome what is being done as a step in the right direction. It is a lot of money being spent by any stretch of the imagination, but I just have the feeling that more could have been done and things should have been done a lot sooner.

Many people are very perplexed as to why it has taken so long to get the ball rolling on tackling youth unemployment. I am no different, and when I see young people struggling to be given a chance in life it really hits home that we have some big challenges that are deep routed. The Youth Contract is just part of the story and I really hope that a wider review into the situation and larger policy will be created sooner rather than later. Because if anyone feels like throwing money at the situation will fix anything, they need only look at Labour's failed Future Jobs Fund!

Samuel is an award winning social entrepreneur and political commentator. He has previously been highlighted as a Future Leader by Powerful Media, and is the first ever GBA Young Star of Enterprise (CBI/ Real Business Magazine). He is the founder of youth employment social enterprise Elevation Networks

Vladimir Putin: Being Strong: National Security Guarantees for Russia

2012-02-23T00:00:00Z

In a world of upheaval there is always the temptation to resolve one's problems at another's expense, through pressure and force.

It is no surprise that some are calling for resources of global significance to be freed from the exclusive sovereignty of a single nation. This cannot happen to Russia, not even hypothetically.

In other words, we should not tempt anyone by allowing ourselves to be weak. We will, under no circumstances, surrender our strategic deterrent capability. Indeed, we will strengthen it.

We will not be able to strengthen our international position or develop our economy or our democratic institutions if we are unable to protect Russia.

We see ever new regional and local wars breaking out. We see new areas of instability and deliberately managed chaos. Determined attempts are being made to provoke such conflicts even close to Russia's and its allies' borders. The basic principles of international law are being degraded and eroded, especially in terms of international security.

Under these circumstances, Russia cannot rely on diplomatic and economic methods alone to resolve conflicts. Our country faces the task of sufficiently developing its military potential as part of a deterrence strategy. This is an indispensable condition for Russia to feel secure and for our partners to listen to our country's arguments.

We have adopted and are implementing unprecedented programmes to develop our armed forces and modernise Russia's defence industry. We will allocate around 23 trillion roubles for these purposes over the next decade. This is not a militarisation of the Russian budget, however.

Our goal should be to build a fully professional army. Servicemen must have a full package of social benefits, adequate to their enormous social responsibility.

It's clear there have been plenty of discussions over the amount and timing of this large-scale financing. The goal of creating modern armed forces and of comprehensively strengthening our defensive potential cannot be put off.

In fact, our defence centres and enterprises have missed several modernisation cycles in the last 30 years. Yet we have made great strides in reforming the army. High-readiness forces manned with contract soldiers have been formed in all strategic areas. Self-sufficient units have been created. A unit of this type carried out the peace enforcement operation in Georgia in 2008 and protected the peoples of South Ossetia and Abkhazia.

Our Navy has resumed its presence in strategic areas of the World Ocean, including the Mediterranean.

So what does the future have in store for us? The probability of a global war between nuclear powers is not high, because that would mean the end of civilisation. Nobody will dare launch a large-scale aggression...

High-precision long-range conventional weapons will become increasingly common. An important, if not decisive, role in determining the nature of armed conflict will be played by the military capability of a country to counter space or information related threats, especially in cyberspace.

We must also take decisive steps to strengthen our aerospace defences. We are being pushed by the policies of the US and NATO on the deployment of their antimissile system. In order to keep the global balance of forces, we either have to create our own antimissile system or, more efficiently, to ensure our capability to overcome any antimissile system and defend Russia's potential for retaliation. Russia's military and technical response to the US global antimissile shield and its European section will be effective and asymmetrical.

Similarly, the activities that the world's leading military powers have initiated around the Arctic are forcing Russia to secure our interests in that region.

Some people argue that rebuilding our military-industrial complex will saddle the economy with a heavy burden, the same burden that bankrupted the Soviet Union. I am sure this is profoundly delusionary.

The USSR collapsed due to the suppression of natural market forces in the economy and long-running disregard for the interests of the people. We cannot repeat the errors of the past.

The huge resources invested in modernising our military-industrial complex and re-equipping the Army must serve as fuel to feed the engines of modernisation in our economy, creating real growth and a situation where government expenditure funds new jobs, supports market demand and facilitates scientific research.

We will be resolute in eliminating corruption from the defence industry and the Armed Forces, ensuring that punishment for those who fall foul of the law is inevitable. Corruption in the national security sector is essentially treason.

We must rely on the very latest developments in the art of war. Falling behind means becoming vulnerable. It means putting our country and the lives of our soldiers and officers at risk.

The objective is to expand, not weaken, the country's economy and create an Army and military-industrial complex that will secure Russia's sovereignty, the respect of our foreign partners and lasting peace.

Lou Stoppard: On the High Street: The Battle of the Knock-Offs

2012-02-23T00:00:00Z

So fashion season is well and truly upon us. Journalists, PRs and models alike have dusted off their heels, halved their calorie intake and buckled up for a marathon of shows, parties and presentations. As the London Autumn/Winter collections come to a close, the dust settles on Somerset House and the critics return to their desks to furiously scribble down their musings, the pressure is on a different team of designers. Those on the high street, who are now busy knocking off the London collections as fast as you can say, "actually, it's just from Topshop."

The British high street has long harboured questionable copyright morals. Today, perusing Zara is like walking around Liberty in some strange parallel universe where everything looks the same but is about a tenth of the price. J-brand-esque ankle-zip jeans for £30 anyone? Or how about a nice Stella McCartney-style tote bag? There are even some Margiela-aping asymmetric skirts if you're feeling adventurous.

It's what makes designer/high street collaborations so humorous. The high street has been in a very one-sided collaboration for years - ripping off designers' creative talent, and thanking its lucky stars that only the super-rich can justify those incredible price points. You can't help but wonder why Mary Katrantzou would design a range for Topshop when it has been knocking off her designs all year, selling printed T-shirts and graphic floral trousers. Sweet noble Mary, does she not see the dark forces at work here?

Still, who am I to complain? The amazing copycat abilities of the high street are what keep the majority of us looking half-decent all year round. Its homage to Celine is what got us all into chic camel coats, and its love affair with Acne has provided me with a very wearable pair of heeled black ankle boots. £60, if you're asking. Bargain.

So in true fashion industry spirit - let's put the ethics aside and look at the clothes. What will be the star trends from this season that will, with the speed of the deadliest virus, filter their way from runway to Alexa Chung to Topshop to Only Way Is Essex stars to the masses. What item will permeate all of our wardrobes? What will be the Burberry aviator jacket or Stella sheer polka-dot dress of this season?

Well print was big news on the London runway, partly due to its vogue amongst the coolest young designers, Peter Pilotto, Louise Gray and the like. Even the less hip labels jumped on the bandwagon. Middleton-favourite Issa offered up a print-heavy showing, with dresses featuring patterns of Russian Dolls and St Basil's Cathedral - very 'gap yah', and thus perfectly in tune with their posh-totty client base. The best knock-offs are sure to come from Whistles and Warehouse - look for oriental-inspired print blouses and bright floral dresses.

But be aware fair shoppers, this is where the high street can make a good trend go bad. Sporting a bad print on an ill-fitting item is like wearing a sandwich board saying "Primark sale bin". The most important rule is stay away from printed body con. Print and lycra - the most evil sartorial union ever created, and one that the high street continues to push at us with ever increasing gusto. No-one looks good when prints are made of such cheap, thin fabrics that they stretch out of shape when worn, giving the wearer a deformed floral vision emblazoned across their buttocks or breasts, resembling a giant warped tattoo on a pregnant woman's belly. Classy.

Texture was equally huge on the catwalks, from leather at Christopher Kane and Todd Lynn, to fur almost everywhere, including Mulberry and Temperley. Poor PETA. This will please Zara who love nothing more than churning out a nice pair of pleather jeans or a faux-suede jacket - the kind of items that look half decent immediately after purchase but loose their expensive façade after a few wears, or the second it rains when black dye begins running down your legs.

The trick of the trade is weeding out the trends that are impossible to translate from catwalk to pavement. Fashion osmosis is a risky business; there are those looks will never warrant a place in our closet. The kind that should stay in the dark place that is the catwalk venue, draped on the body of an emaciated 14-year-old. Take Meadham Kirchhoff's entire collection, full of glitter and tartan - do we love it on the runway? Of course. Would it look great on any of us after being re-created by New Look? Certainly not.

Then there are trends that we can only hope will go global. Imagine if Roksanda Ilincic's understated tailored trouser surpassed leggings in popularity. Or if Peter Jensen's modest shifts replaced the racks and racks of lurid thigh-skimmers stacked in Primark. A girl can dream.

So be savvy ladies. No matter how much you loved the original collection, step away from the crazy reproductions, anything see-through, sequined, or flammable-looking. Instead hunt for the master forgeries - the perfectly copied Jonathan Saunders jacket, or the timeless Burberry-style pencil skirt. Times are hard and we all have to tighten our (knock-off) belts. Play your credit cards right and you'll be able to get all your favourite designer looks for next to nothing.

Matt Browne: After the Third Way: Progressive Alternatives to European Austerity

2012-02-22T22:06:31Z

Over a decade ago, 13 of the then 15 member countries of the European Union were led by progressive governments. Today, austerity politics dominates, and Socialist, Social Democratic and Labour parties are in opposition in all but 3 of the Union's now 27 member states. As a consequence, a fervent debate is taking place about the future of European progressive politics. Traditionalists are calling for a return to core values and a more aggressive role for government, while revisionists assert that further modernization should provide the progressive alternative, drawing on the skills and resources of a broader range of actors. Whichever view prevails could determine not just the fortunes of progressive politics on the Continent, but also the direction of the European project itself.

At the center of the current debate is a battle over the legacy of the Third Way. Was this an unprincipled election strategy and unnecessary accommodation with neoliberalism? Or, as its architects assert, was it a genuine and authentic modernization of social democracy for the time, one that recognized a hostile right-wing media necessitated a new style of politics just as demographic, economic and social evolutions necessitated new policies? Advocates of the first view, such as former UK Labour Party leader Roy Hattersely, claim it was the betrayal of core constituencies and core values that caused the current exile from power. In response, they call for a refocusing on the central state as driver of social change and greater distribution of wealth.

As Former UK Foreign Secretary David Miliband notes, this argument is appealing because it reassures people that nothing has changed, and that progressives don't need a fundamental rethink of their politics. It helps us feel good without obliging us to try and do good. Unfortunately, it's wrong. In his recent contribution to the debate, former UK Treasury Secretary Liam Byrne has illustrated that centralized state power is rarely the best or most effective vehicle for delivering public goods. Moreover, in the medium term, the capacity of the state to finance many of these services must also be re-evaluated. For the foreseeable future, progressives will need to promote social entrepreneurialism and a new partnership between an empowered local government and active citizens, focusing spending where it matters most, such as early years' education.

Today, even among its architects, defense of the Third Way is nuanced. At a recent dinner in Washington, D.C., Peer Steinbrück, the former German Finance Minister and one of three possible Social Democratic candidates for Chancellor in 2013, reminded British and American guests of their naivety regarding the importance of manufacturing to domestic markets and the importance of financial regulation. Similarly, a politics that focused on occupying the center-ground, and message control and sound-bites did little to motivate party members and supporters, and seems rather outdated an era of dominated by new social media and movements.

So, is there a credible progressive alternative to austerity? If so, is it attractive enough to mobilize a winning electoral constituency?

In Europe, two competing approaches are emerging: one that operates within the confines of the recent Eurozone stability pact; a second that seeks to provide an alternative to it. The first is epitomized by a new generation of modernizers such as the Danish Social Democrat Prime Minister, Helle Thorning-Schmidt, elected in September last year, and the leader of the Romanian Social Democrats, Victor Ponta, who goes to the polls in November. Both favor a cautious political strategy that combines a formal coalition with progressive partners to assure a broad base of electoral support with a targeted reform agenda to spur business growth and trigger government reform. The second is embodied in François Hollande's candidacy to become President of France. This strategy is based on mobilizing broad support for the socialists by securing their left flank with promises to increase investment in economic growth and reform Europe's stability pact into growth pact.

While the approach of the new moderates may appear less ambitious, it offers a real and credible alternative. It is also popular with electorates tired of grandiose promises. Hollande's strategy, despite its popular appeal, also entails a dual risk. The Eurozone appears to be in recovery -- as Farheed Zakari notes. If Hollande is seen to jeopardize this, either by the electorate or the markets, he could be punished at the polls. This, one suspects, is the gamble that Merkel and Sarkozy are making. And, even if Hollande wins, a treaty revision requires unanimity among the European Union member states.

A fourth progressive government in office is a step forward, but however admirable a goal it may be, reform of the stability pact will remain beyond the reach of Europe's progressive for the foreseeable future.