The conservative lead coalition appears to have found them selves a distraction from the growing public deficit. Well after all theirs nothing like a war to take your mind off things, but that's not all, if they're cleaver enough we could have two!

Target number one could be Argentina. The increasingly powerful South American country has renewed calls for control over the Falkland Islands, but Cameron is not so keen on the idea. In fact, he has sent Prince William and the aptly named HMS dauntless to the islands to make shore Christina (the president of Argentina) doesn't try anything. April will see the 30th anniversary of the Falkland wars but, no one seems to have forgotten what they were fighting for, or have they? The islands cover an area about half the size of Wales and look much like a Scottish island, of which we have many. They are fairly baron and are inhabited by 3000 wana be Brits, plus almost as many members of the British Military there to protect them. The island is a black hole for the defence budget. The islands are home to a few rare sea birds, but there no one saying that the Argentineans wouldn't keep them just as well. So why does David care so much when Cristina accuses him of the pacific, because there's oil to be had. It's the same old story I am afraid, apart from this time we really were there first! It is as yet unclear quite how much oil there is, but first estimates look promising and David has his eye on it. In an attempt at playing their bluff he’s started accusing Argentina of colonialism, he says he is standing up for the sovereignty of the Islanders. Now I am not seriously suggesting there is going to be another Thatcher styled war but, it damaging our foreign relations. Argentina is popular with the world's future powers like Brazil. Oil or no oil I say let the war mongering islanders, who are responsible for the deaths of over 900 Argentinean and British soldiers, fight their own battles. We have bigger fish to fry, Iran.

The argument is we have to fry the Iranians before they fry us; they are building a nuclear bomb! Furthermore, they are hardly lead by a moderate leader and, unlike in Argentina, there is really no foreign policy to spoil. The Iranians are shut off to the western world and we don’t much like it. The supposed bomb in question is being built under a mountain in a base called Qom, it is supposedly completely immune to air attack. With that in mind we would have to fight our way into Iran on the ground, not as easy as in our previous venture into near by Iraq. Iran has a huge and sophisticated army. So by the sounds of it, it’s not such a good idea but, then again it’s not really up to us Brits weather the war starts or not. Israel and America feel particularly threatened by Iran and many are predicting a strike as near as April. If they did David would have a tough decision to make, don’t support the invasion and loose out on friendship with America, support the invasion and make yourself a worldwide target for terrorists, anti war activists and an inevitable future nuclear armed Iran.

So if I had to choose Argentina or Iran I would probably up the anti in the Falklands. However Britain is not the power it used to be and I believe David would do well to remember that in the coming months.

We did it, two minuets after Youth News reported on the SOPA laws, rumours broke that the controversial laws had been postponed, I knew having Barack on the mailing list was a good idea!

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid said that "in light of recent events" the "stop online piracy act" and the "stop IP" bills would be "postponed."

One can only presume he was referring to the protests reported upon in Youth New's earlier post

http://www.youthnews.co.uk/#/home/4559071019/US-plans-to-clamp-down-on-piracy-amid-threats-of-internet-shutdown-and-bank-break-ins/895704

There are two ways of looking at this it appears to me: Either this is a positive step for freedom of speech in the USA and shows how sustained campaigning can have a real impact. However it could be argued that this shows the US Senate buckling under the corporate pressure of high profile internet giants.

Whatever the case i can certainly get away with posting this official photo of the white house for a little while yet!

A storm has been brewing in the USA and now its caught the eye of more than a few computer Geeks. Yesterday the US made their first major step forward in a quest to stopping online piracy, they shut down a web site called Megaupload, but it is only the beginnings of their plan to censor the internet of copyrighted material.

The US Senate is currently considering legislation that would hold online organisations, not individuals, responsible for copyright infringement. This could mean that sites like You Tube, Wikipedia, Twitter and even search engines like Google could be sued if copyrighted material was found to be on their site.

The two bills that would give this legal power are "the stop online piracy act" and the "stop IP" bill. If brought in the changes would certainly bring an end to internet culture as we know it, it would make sharing information or opinions much harder and may even effect blogs like this.

There has been severe resistance to the bills, on the 19th of January Wikipedia shut down its English pages in protest and many other popular sites made similar protests. Perhaps more sinisterly the web hacking group Anonymous released a video claiming that if Megaupload was not saved they would shut down many of the internet's most used sites including Facebook and You Tube. They also threatened to hack into some major international banks, but promised not to distribute any account holders information. Anonymous have made many threats in the past, some have not come to fruition. However, they have taken credit for many high profile hacking operations including taking down PayPal in July 11, so make of it what you will.

This is more than likely to be the first of many threats, in this most controversial of topics, from both sides of the argument.

On March 3rd 2011 the European Court of Justice ruled that women should not benefit from cheaper car insurance than men. The court believes that to make distinctions between sexes is discriminatory and as a result motor insurance for young women could rise by up to 60%.

The change will come into effect on the 21st of December 2012. With the date looming youth news is going to analyse the facts and try to establish what the ruling will mean for young drivers and find some solutions to rising insurance premiums.

Based on best estimates;

Insurance premiums for young women will rise by up to 60%.

Insurance premiums for young men will fall by up to 10%

The change will increase the net monetary intake for insurers if demand for policies stays at its current levels.

The solutions if you still want to buy cheap young drivers insurance after the ruling? Limited. Putting yourself on your parents' insurance makes little difference to premium prices and if you are the main driver is illegal. Downsizing engine capacity is a good idea, but still won't make your insurance prices cheap.

There is, however, one solution an increasing number of young drivers are opting for in order to keep insurance prices down and that is driving old and classic cars. Older cars are generally cheaper to insure, a VW beetle being a popular choice with polices available at around £1300 for an 18 year old. Even cheaper are policies on Citroen 2cv's or Morris minors which can be found for around £700.

Whilst a classic might not be the most Practical choice they will bring with them a large reduction in insurance premiums for young men and women. Which will be appealing after December 21st when average insurance premiums for 18 year old will be around £4000 for a normal car.