If violence could be ended by his leaving, it might be a good step.

I have winced at recent comments made by international politicians denouncing Col Gaddafi and his regime. It isn't because I don't endorse their sentiments (I do), it is their stark terminology that worries me.

Libya is fractured. Endorsement for change is not so clearly cut as the recent calls delivered by the peoples of Tunisia and Egypt. An international narrative which seeks to push a single agenda could be an alienating alternative to a very sticky problem.

These words, served by America's Secretary of State Hilary Clinton, are exemplary of a softer reasoning. They could very well be the way to progress. Sticking to sentiments of rationality and concern, an argument can be crafted that is incontrovertible.

Ask the Libyan people to open their eyes to the violence and they will understand Gaddafi's sinister grip on them, regardless of his own broadcast absolutes to the contrary.

MUSCULAR LIBERALISM

Prime Minister David Cameron recently spoke on his concerns about terrorism and the integration of various religious groups into British society. His speech offered a view that an erosion of definitive national social principles has allowed the rise of distinct separations in the manner in which we conduct our lives. He argued that without providing robust expectations of its citizens, our country will not tackle the threads of unrest that are slowly boiling beneath its surface. He explicitly refers to extreme religious factions that adopt life principles that are incompatible with the aspirations of the greater UK populace.

Cameron used the terminology "muscular liberalism" to give shape to his image of a nation that holds certain democratic qualities as defining cornerstone principles.

It is easy to imagine liberalism as a compelling way to describe the desires for a population. It is a strong statement of will that declares in grand tones a giddy freedom. Several hints of force that creep into Cameron's rhetoric (economic sanctions for example) are surely contrary to such a vision of a truly liberalised nation? Freedom, after all, moves beyond governance: to enshrine it in doctrine would be an opposition to allowing it to truly flourish. The lingual predominance of this particular point - with the stark adjective "muscular" - only dents the sentiment further with imagery that sounds (if only slightly) violent.

What do his words really mean?

OPPOSITION OR OPPORTUNISM? [2]

OPPOSITION OR OPPORTUNISM?

Parliament functions more democratically when its members are held to account for the decisions they make. This is an important role for any opposition party: to scrutinize and critique the work of the government.

In 2011, Labour finds itself as the only party in an opposing role. It is all the more important therefore that they are able to hold the coalition government to account.

The best manner in which to do so is by entering into intelligent and productive discourse over the decisions made by ministers. If Labour is to make any change during the course of this parliament, its members must willingly establish a platform on which to debate these ideas.

At present, there is no adequate platform.

Ed Milliband spoke of assuming a rational opposition to proposed cuts during his debut conference address as leader. The reality of his opposition suggests otherwise.

The flurries of vitriol and bile that adorn debate is flying thick and fast from the red corner and is a worrying indication that Labour currently have no developed vision for alternative action. There is more at stake, of course, than simply helping to shape good policies: if Labour is to ever assume office once more it must stop treading water and Playing Politics.