The BP oil spill is a veritable environmental disaster but more is needed than an apology and restitution.

Yesterday, following meetings at the White House, President Obama managed to extract an apology from the heads of British Petroleum and the promise of $20 billion for a compensation fund.

This seems reasonable, as a catastrophic error on the part of BP has caused untold damage around the Gulf of Mexico, but it does not help solve the root problems.

I am by no means making any excuses for BP. There is nothing from this whole fiasco that makes them look anything but incompetent. How a multinational corporation can have no contingencies or technologies for use in the event of a disaster is baffling. Their negligence has caused a huge environmental disaster, but Obama’s actions look like posturing.

Firstly, the United States has a woeful record on the environment, and the constant refusals to sign the Kyoto agreement or make any meaningful effort to combat climate change are well-documented. Part of the reluctance to commit to reducing emissions is due to the fact that the U.S. creates a huge percentage of emissions because it uses around a quarter of the world’s oil.

However, when this oil causes an environmental disaster in its backyard, the U.S. is outraged. I do not remember this fuss over Trafigura and their reputed dumping of toxic waste on the Ivory Coast.

Secondly, corporations the size of BP run themselves with little or no accountability to anyone because of the power they hold. This size and power is primarily due to what has effectively been the state religion of the U.S. (and much of Western Europe) since the Reagan era: free market capitalism.

How advantageous it would have been for someone to maintain a semblance of control over oil production in the Gulf of Mexico and perhaps have prevented the spill from happening in the first place. But this was out of the question as markets must be free.

Finally, it is worth bearing in mind that it is inadvisable in the current economic climate for Obama to push a large transnational company for more and more money. As the world struggles out of a recession, the last thing we want is the collapse of BP, which would have a ripple effect around the world’s markets.

I understand that somebody should pay for the damage caused as a consequence of what can only be described as idiocy. But this debacle should highlight two even bigger problems: The U.S. and the world’s continued reliance on oil and free markets with their enormous companies are 20th century concepts that need to be updated.

They managed to cram references to 22 bills as well as some extra issues into the eight-odd minutes of the speech and it is interesting to see whether the Lib-Con partnership has tempered the extreme fringes of each party and, more relevantly, whether this coalition will work.

A few of the bills were relatively obvious, based on beliefs shared by both parties and the majority of the public. The Energy and Green Economy will push efficient and low carbon energy production and usage, while the Freedom and Identity Documents bills offer a halt on the erosion of civil liberties through scrapping id cards and next-gen biometric passports and limiting the storage of DNA among other things.

Another couple of bills offered concrete reminders of the key issues in either party that presumably were key compromises in the debates prior to forming the coalition. Clegg gets his Parliamentary Reform Bills to establish a five year fixed-term election system as well as a referendum on the voting system. In return, the Tories get the European Union Bill which would guarantee a referendum on any further issues of power being handed to Brussels. Also for DC and the right, there was talk of a cap on jobs for non-EU migrants. Perhaps not as far as some of the Tory faithful would like though.

Other bills that drew my attention include the Academies Bill which would allow for the creation of many more academy schools, which are already controversial for their creation of a two-tier education system. Being able to opt out of local authority control to be run by governors and parents with local private sponsors does not seem fair to me as it will clearly benefit those schools in already affluent areas.

Strangely, there is a bill to decentralise some power and give more freedom on housing and planning issues to councils and to review local government finance, which sounds like the start of a shift towards devolved local government, but another bill will block the creation of single-tier councils in Exeter and Norwich. Surely a council can decide on its own structure if it is allowed more power to control housing and planning?

A mixed bag all in all and I think things will become more interesting upon hearing Osborne’s emergency budget on 22 June.

Let’s not pretend that this election has gone beyond class boundaries. I was privately-schooled and I sometimes used to feel embarrassed by the Conservatives by association. I feel that if I admit the provenance of my education, I am admitting to something else politically. But not anymore, my parents paid for me to be educated, but I think that education should be free and a means of equalising everybody. I am not tied to the opinions of my parents yet sadly the political opinions of many others are bound to eighties norms, which often end up damaging the Lib Dems as a force for equality in 2010.

What the fuck is going on now as the Tories continue to dominate? I thought, and hoped, that the public response to the debates led to a complete rejection of rightwing values and policies. Apparently it was easier to vote as you did before than voting for actual change. If anyone brings up the Conservatives’ slogan for change, I will be angry, ‘cos we all know fuck all will actually change. Serves me right for being a dreamer, I guess.

Esther Rantzen not elected. Is anybody surprised?

Jacqui Smith loses her seat dramatically to the Tories, surely Campbell cannot spin this one.

But I’m not gloating, I’m mourning, watching seat after seat of (vaguely) leftwing ideology getting lost to cheap electioneering on immigration.

The politicians have to be magnanimous but I don’t. ‘Those Eastern Europeans’ are from Eastern Europe and I feel proud of a country that lets people come in and share in the best that we have to offer. If you work hard and do well, no ‘immigrant’ is going to steal your job. Let’s remember what we fought for sixty years ago and accept the vibrancy and multiculturalism of modern British life.

Not long after, Cameron wins by a massive majority in his home constituency of Witley. I had always hoped the unthinkable might have happened and DC may have lost at home. Fat chance. At least he fits in his constituency unlike certain Labour politicians who get forced into seats. David Miliband, a representative of South Shields? Politically, perhaps, personally, I think not.

In his victory speech, Cameron refers to a brilliantly run election before talking about the areas where perhaps the election wasn’t run brilliantly (my earlier comments aside). And then claims he does not want to predict results before stating that Labour and Gordon Brown have lost the mandate to govern. Make your mind up?

3.20am and everything starts to break down. Paxman tries to question Liam Fox and David Miliband on the possibility of a coalition government but through a combination of misdirection, obstinacy and faking the onset of technical problems, nobody gives a fucking clue as to what might actually happen. The future of the parliament of this country lies not in the hands of the people but of the political negotiators.

Sorry I didn’t mention it earlier but while the BBC studio looks pretty good (much better than on ITV), the swingometer or whatever it may be called is really, really crap. Jeremy Vine in a 80s computer game movie with fake giant dominoes, come on! We all pay for this you know.

More to the point, Rupert fucking Murdoch is winning the election so far. Why does this keep on happening?

And the Lib Dems win in Burnley. Alistair Campbell’s hometown isn’t it?

Why do we have to keep on returning to the inane chatter of drunken celebs on a boat with Andrew Neil? What does this add to the overall impression of the general election? Most of them vote Tory so they can protect their extravagant earnings in tax havens.

Massive controversy now over people not being able to exercise their democratic right and vote. The fact that some people have not voted at all is a worry but being a cynical dickhead I feel the outrage goes too far. Surely some of these people could have tried to vote before 8/9/10pm? No reports of queuing at 7 or 8am conveniently…

Blunkett gets interviewed by Paxman and admits to a forthcoming Labour defeat. Refreshing… but both Milibands avoid this tactic and spout rubbish about the constitutional right of the incumbent Prime Minister to form a government. True, but desperate talk.

The coverage turns to City of Durham and a possible Lib Dem gain. Interesting but halfway through we go to Kirkcaldy and Cowdenbeath to see Brown absolutely massacre the opposition there. What is the focus of the election coverage? The famous people or the results that could actually decide the election?

Sadly the Lib Dem support seems to be disappearing rapidly. A friend and I discuss the fact that people get to the booths and revert to type. He cites Gramscian theory, I cite being scared.

Its now just after 2am, where the hell is the Lib Dem force? I cannot look forward to a Cameron government. Vote for change, vote for a change back to a Thatcherite government but with a friendlier exterior. Like a Kinder egg with anthrax inside.

Right off the bat, Clegg came out with something which sounded like a sensible idea. He suggested a type of council for financial issues to be formed so that there could be debate and interaction between the chancellors of all the parties, the head of the Bank of England and the Institute for Fiscal Studies. Both Brown and Cameron conveniently ignored this attempt at cross-party co-operation though.

There was also a lot of discussion on the issues of fairness in terms of taxation. Clegg’s proposal that income tax will not be paid on the first £10,000 of a salary seemed the fairest way to help low and middle income earners.

Cameron suggested fairness was at the root of his inheritance tax cuts. He wants to encourage people to work hard, to pay off their mortgage and save and not be punished if they want to pass that on to their children. Sounded good until Brown reminded us that the threshold was £650,000. Not many people are going to be in that position when they die.

Brown was constantly reminded of how unfair his National Insurance rises appear to be. His response that people earning under £20,000 would not pay a rise was weak as this still leaves a large majority of the population, including many that would not be considered big earners.

In terms of the attitude to the banks, which remains a point of anger for many, there were various suggestions. Cameron’s proposal to allow the Bank of England to regulate the banks is potentially quite good but surprised me as a very interventionist policy for a conservative government.

Clegg’s suggestions were much more populist; no bonuses at the director level of banks and no bonuses at all for banks that make losses. To me and many others, this will sound reasonable, a bonus is meant to be a reward for doing well, not something you get whatever happens.

There was still plenty of idle bickering between the three, Brown was obsessed with reminding us that the Tories were in power in previous economic crises in the 30s, 80s and 90s while Cameron kept claiming Brown was wrong or lying which was met with a laugh or a shake of the head from Brown.

But nobody had an awful evening and it remains anyone’s guess as to what will happen on May 6. We will just have to sit and wait, perhaps for more gaffes like Brown’s microphone mess with ‘Bigotgate’.

As I predicted, Brown and Cameron tried to come back at Clegg after his miraculous poll results following the first debate. Cameron used the EU as his battleground while Brown kept making reference to Clegg’s ‘anti-americanism’, much to Clegg’s annoyance.

The debate led to much more even results in the poll even if the debate wasn’t that even. Cameron remembered to look at the camera, Brown wore a red tie rather than a blurry pink one, and there was even some actual discussion of policy.

Nonetheless, Clegg did not buckle under the pressure and fall apart as some thought and the election on May 6, barring a dramatic implosion by Clegg in the final debate, remains very much a three-horse race.

I was disappointed with the debate on the EU, as obvious point-scoring arguments were made. Cameron stuck to the “we don’t want Brussels telling us what to do” card, while Clegg repeatedly criticised Cameron for aligning the Conservatives with “nutters, homophobes and antisemites”.

Brown changed his catchphrase from “I agree with Nick” to “Get real, Nick”, first bringing it up in relation to Clegg’s opposition to spending £100bn or so on renewing the Trident missile system.

While some may think Trident is necessary, I don’t. What’s more, while all three claimed they wanted to provide troops with the necessary equipment in the future, only Clegg suggested a way of having the money to do so. Saving £100bn on Trident means a lot of extra money to spend on equipment for the troops in Iraq and Afghanistan.

I was disappointed with Brown’s scaremongering tactics of criticising Clegg’s rejection of Trident with the threat of nuclear attack from Iran and North Korea. It was cheap and also deluded; if anybody thinks that we are the likely first target of the ire of either Iran or North Korea, then they have a very self-important view of our role in the world today.

Some of the questions were poorly chosen, which was a shame when there is a limit on what can be discussed. “What have you done personally to combat climate change recently?” led to a few idle boasts about solar panels and public transport and nothing that really relates to running the country.

The question about the response to the Pope’s forthcoming state visit had the potential for strong words in the face of a corrupt institution but the candidate’s replies were tempered by obvious responses about a respect for all faiths.

This was not the point of the question; criticism of the institution of the Catholic Church and its cover up of the child abuse scandal as well as viewpoints on homosexuality and contraception is different to criticism of the faith of Catholicism and its believers in the UK.

On a lighter note, there was more petty squabbling and Cameron followed his “I met a black man” comment of last week with “I went for a run this morning with someone just back from Afghanistan”. Why make him run with you? He surely has better things to be doing.

The Labour government has been taking criticism on long-running issues like the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan and more recent issues such as the response to the recession. The Tories seemed to have the upper hand but then cracks developed as there are worries over the lack of policies put forward by David Cameron.

But then, it shifted again after the UK finally decided to follow the US pattern and hold a debate between the leaders of the three main parties. The Liberal Democrats were involved but many thought it was pointless for them to be there as they would have little chance of challenging the two main parties, as happens every time. The opinion polls after the debate disagreed. Depending on which poll you saw, Nick Clegg won, with from 30% to 60% of the vote.

I don’t think Clegg’s performance was as good as some claimed but I was impressed with the way he tried to engage with the actual question being asked and to respond to the individual who had asked it. Brown and Cameron tended to hear a keyword or phrase and then launch into an obviously prepared speech on the topic.

Brown fared the worst in the opinion polls, but I do not think his performance was that bad for a man who admits his public and media savvy is not up to much. Also, as the current Prime Minister, he is in the unenviable role of having to take responsibility for problems and any good ideas he puts forward will be criticised with why hasn’t it been done yet? However Cameron, often thought to be a smooth operator in the media, seemed very nervous and came across very badly.

Although I didn’t think Clegg’s performance was brilliant, I am very pleased that he has done well and that the British public are finally taking the third way as a serious political consideration. The Lib Dems may not suddenly win the general election but it puts forward the real possibility of a coalition government with them involved.

Before we get too carried away though, we have to remember that there are still two debates to come, starting Thursday, and the others will be looking to bash Clegg, perhaps on the EU, placing Clegg’s europhilia in opposition to the large euro-sceptic body of feeling in the country at the moment. It’s something to look forward to anyway. C’mon Cleggy!

The night was split into two distinct gigs with Zane Lowe presenting Plan B, the Courteeners and the Futureheads in the main room before Nick Grimshaw presented two hyped bands of the moment upstairs in the Academy 2; Chapel Club and Frankie and the Heartstrings.

I didn’t get to see Plan B and I only saw half of the Courteeners’ set which sadly wasn’t enough to convert me into a fan of their quite derivative tunes. There were plenty who enjoyed it in the crowd though and I have certainly seen worse bands in my time.

The real focus, of course, was local heroes the Futureheads and there was no way I was missing them. About to return with a new album entitled ‘The Chaos’, they were able to give several tracks a new airing including single ‘The Heartbeat Song’. The other new tracks sounded promising as well.

Due to the constraints of being recorded for a radio show, they only played for forty minutes, not long for a band on their fourth album. Still, they managed to cram in all the favourites with ‘First Day’, ‘Decent Days and Nights’, ‘Hounds of Love’ and ‘Skip to the End’ all getting an airing before they closed with ‘The Beginning of the Twist’ and ‘Carnival Kids’.

To the aftershow and Chapel Club, who I was interested in seeing. They sound at times like a poor man’s Joy Division and at others like a more indie White Lies. I quite enjoyed their set musically but the contrast between their lack of stage presence and the frenetic sets of the Futureheads and Courteeners before left  most of the crowd underwhelmed.

The same couldn’t be said for Frankie and the Heartstrings who are the young pretenders to the Futureheads’ crown as North East faves. Musically they are different to anything out there at the moment with strong 50s rock and roll and northern soul influences.

However their real strength is frontman Frankie who charismatically dominates the stage with his part greaser, part James Dean, part mackem Morrissey approach. Their set was great fun and a brilliant end to the night.

As part of the bill, by 2011 all children will receive compulsory sex education classes that include discussion of divorce, contraception, same sex relationships and civil partnerships. This seemed like a sensible contribution to education in this country that would provide children with a balanced view and would help with issues such as teenage pregnancy, homophobia and misogyny.

However after lobbying from the Catholic Education Service, an amendment was tacked on and passed in the House of Commons yesterday that allowed for the teaching of sex education to be able to reflect a school’s religious character.

This doesn’t sound particularly awful in itself and I do not want a ban on any religious beliefs in schools, I just think this amendment offers too much free reign to faith schools to teach what they like. (Although I do feel that religion should be a choice made by people who have been exposed to all possibilities rather than force fed from birth.)

The implications are quite worrying and the justifications of Ed Balls, the Schools Secretary, do not ease these worries. He claims that a Catholic school would have to teach about contraception but would be at liberty to say that their beliefs dictate that it is wrong.

In my eyes telling 14 year olds that homosexuality exists but is a sin is not a way to discourage homophobia, nor does it seem like the type of amendment that a liberal democratic government should be passing in 2010.

We can at least be grateful that our esteemed parliament spent time debating this important issue though. Our elected leaders took the effort to decide upon the best course of action for the sexual and social education of all children in this country. Actually they didn’t, as apparently there was a lack of time. Oh well, they just voted to prolong draconian views of contraception and homosexuality.