Higher turnout in 2012 is not a surprise - it was obvious

To the relief of every country in the world minus China, Barack Obama has won re-election in a tight race with Mitt Romney. 

I say tight; it certainly seemed tight going into election day but when push came to shove, it was Obama who cleaned up and won 303 electoral college votes (possibly 332 if Florida goes his way) in comparison to Romney's 206.

Obama's victory is being attributed to his "coalition" of young voters, women, Latinos and other ethnic minorities. There was a lot of noise made in the run-up to this election about whether this "coalition" would support Obama as heavily as they did in 2008, when there was a wave of euphoria around him.

There is a consensus that the "Obama-lition" not only turned out for their candidate in 2012, but they surpassed the numbers in 2008 and recorded all-time high turnouts in key districts. Some are surprised by this: the euphoria turned into disillusionment as their agent for change struggled to make his mark, battling a worldwide economic downturn, a shitstorm in the Middle East and Republicans on the Hill. Obama was never going to heal the planet and calm the oceans; he was never going to change things in just four years, instead his job was to steady the ship and that he did. But that argument did not resonate with the voting public and Mitt Romney set the stage for what he hailed as a critical point in American history.   

So to understand the "surprisingly high" turnout this year, you must understand the narratives that surrounded both 2008 and 2012. 2008 was "Obama-mania" coated in hope and change and the idea of a fresh start on greener pastures. It got the "Obama-lition" ready to go and fired up and he strolled into the White House. 

But 2012 is a different time. Unemployment is at record highs (Obama won with the highest unemployment rate since FDR), people are struggling to make ends meet and America is seemingly losing its aura as the world's economic superpower to China. Republicans were scared and convinced they needed "real change", a promise that Mitt Romney made. For the Democrats, the gross incompetence and flip-flopping of Romney perhaps scared them more the economy, so they felt the need to "get Obama's back" and give him a second term. That left us with two energised bases who believed their decision would change the course of history. They had to vote, they just had to because the race was painted as such a significant one. 

And it was. Obama has his second term and his role as President is different. The ship is steadied and his attention now turns to change. Obama will use the next four years to build his legacy and establish his vision for America.  

Do you have a right to end your life?

Tony Nicklinson describes his life as "dull, miserable, demeaning, undignified and intolerable." This is because he suffers from locked-in syndrome, a condition that has left him paralysed, incapable of speech or movement. He is currently in the midst of a legal battle that has made headlines and news bulletins across the world today. Mr Nicklinson wants the right to die and the High Court have ruled that his case will be heard, despite opposition from the Ministry of Justice. It has brought this question back into society: do you have a right to end your life?

No, is the simple answer. The 1961 Suicide Act states it is illegal for a person to aid or carry out the suicide of another person, no matter the circumstances. In fact, it carries a maximum prison sentence of 14 years. And this is what Mr Nicklinson is fighting in the courts: he wants to ensure that when his time comes, and he wants to end his life, the person responsible will not be punished. 

The debate around euthanasia is one of the most dividing and passionate in society. Those against it believe life is too sacred to be ended on demand. We, human beings, faced incredible odds to even exist in the first place and the argument is we should "waste" this opportunity. Despite being fully paralysed, Mr Nicklinson has a functioning mind, capable of intelligent thought and killing an intelligent being is an act of murder. This is the point that the Ministry of Justice were seeking to make in court today.

Another argument against assisted dying involves doctors themselves. It is argued that doctors should not have the power to "play God" and kill a man or woman. But don't doctors make this decision everyday, when they ask a family of an ill patient to allow a non-resuscitation order? Is this not a similar situation? Euthanasia is an incredibly serious issue but doctors make decisions based on the medical situation of a patient. Again, this is what will be the next development in the case of Mr Nicklinson: a full hearing in the courts, featuring evidence from medical experts.

The third argument against euthanasia is the "slippery slope." The anti-euthanasia lobby call it "legalised killing" and believe it would set a dangerous precedent. For example, a doctor could kill a patient and say they wanted to die, as a defence. It has even been suggested as (rather sickingly) a cost-cutting measure. A study in 1998 found that doctors, who are conscious of costs would be more likely to give lethal medicine to a terminally-ill patient. At a time of cuts and job losses, as well as a lack of hospital beds and resources, is it too far-fetched to say that euthanasia would be used to curb costs and save the pennies? Not to the critics, no.

The case of Mr Nicklinson has brought this debate back into mainstream media, a good thing in my view. I am personally pro-euthanasia. In a society that promotes the rights of the individual, that argues that human beings have choice over every aspect of their life, whether that is their career, their home, their lifestyle, even their gender, should they not be given the right to control their greatest aspect? Should they not be given that choice? It is your opinion. But as Mr Nicklinson's wife Jane said:

"I'm delighted that the issues surrounding assisted dying are to be aired in court. Politicians and others can hardly complain with the courts providing the forum for debate if the politicians continue to ignore one of the most important topics facing our society today."

The forum has been opened and let the debate begin.

Saving 9,600 Peacocks

The two girls in this photo work at my local branch of Peacocks. The one on the right is a good friend of mine and has been for 7 years now. Today, she, along with 9,600 others, will go into work unsure of their futures.


Peacocks is a profitable company. In 2011, sales rose by 7.4%, making a profit of £27 million. But it has £240 million pounds worth of debt that has caused the store to go into adminstration. Why so much debt? A management-led buyout led by Richard Kirk in 2005, backed by Goldman Sachs and two private U.S. based hedge funds, saddled the company with enormous debt.


So how do you save Peacocks? The company needs an injection of money, e.g. a buyer. There is speculation than Bon Marche, a women's clothing business owned by Peacocks, will be bought and seperated from its parent company to establish it as an independent brand. Another option being thrown around is for government intervention in stopping RBS, one of Peacock's lenders, from withdrawing support from the company. Liberal Democrat MP, Bob Russell said:


"Is it not the role of government, when it owns the bank, to intervene and can we have a debate?" 


Russell's comments are valid. RBS is owned by the tax-payer after its bailout led to the tax-payer owning an 83% stake in the bank. There is pressure on Business Secretary, Vince Cable to push government intervention and is meeting with Cardiff MPs, where Peacocks is based.


The last option for Peacocks is to adopt the 'John Lewis model.' The model is based on a system, where the company is owned by a trust, operated on behalf of the employees, rather than shareholders. Profit is rewarded to staff in the form of an annual bonus, and effectively create a worker-owned company. For some, this is seen as the way forward for Peacocks. Dr Jonathan Deacon of Newport Business School said to BBC News:


"My ideal would be save this company for Wales, save all those fantastic, innovative, entrepreneurial, creative people in that company. It's got a great management. Why don't we look at an option to think about a workers' buy-out and create another John Lewis? Have a co-operative taking place."


The future is unclear for Peacocks and there is no telling on what will happen. Some jobs have already been lost and the belief is that more will follow. In the mean time, the 9,600 'Peacockers' (what a lovely name) remain hopeful and maybe, just maybe, the company will avoid closure.