Rich Lac's Blog

Spain's new government - for now

2011-11-20T22:16:00.000Z

Congratulations to new Spanish Prime Minister Mariano Rajoy of Spain's "People's Party" on ousting the Socialists and winning a decisive victory. The question is: will it make a difference?

In Italy and Greece democratically elected leaders have been booted out by bureaucrats in Brussels because the European elite didn't like their policies. In both cases Berlusconi and Papandreou have been replaced by what the media have coined 'technocrats'.

It is symbolic - if not indicative - of the EU that democracy can be so subverted in the interest of a project. The Euro project: the project that failed.

Austerity measures will follow in both Spain, as they have in Italy and Greece. Now in times of yore, when the IMF parachuted in to rescue countries like this they would impose austerity measures but balance it with the promise of devaluing the currency and making it more competitive. But of course with the Euro that's not possible. the PIIGS (Portugal, Ireland, Italy, Greece and Spain) should never have been allowed to join the Euro since they patently lacked the fiscal and monetary discipline. They didn't play by the rules (of deficit, etc). But they were allowed to join anyway!

Now the hubris. The PIIGS are trapped in the Euro straightjacket and there are no good options. Default and withdrawal from the Euro seems the least bad option; then the Euro can revert to what it was really designed for : Germany, France plus the Benelux countries. Keeping out of the Euro has saved Britain from even greater financial disaster but we are so exposed to the bad debt of the PIIGS that we won't get away with it. And who knows, could France be next?

So enjoy your victory, Senor Rajoy. Just make sure you do what your masters in Brussels do. Otherwise you'll be out on your ear.

You say tomato, I say health scare

2011-06-13T23:29:00.002+01:00

Another year, another health scare. And the usual over-reaction and hysteria. When will people get a sense of perspective?

A very small number of people have fallen ill, and an even smaller number have died, from e-coli poisoning. Man the barricades and reach for your tin hats, the end of the world is nigh. We're doomed I tell you - doomed!

Last weekend I was in a taxi in Loughborough in the English 'East Midlands' and the nice lady driver was telling me how worrying it was. She didn't want to buy cucumbers any more - in fact she wasn't sure about any vegetables. Very worrying, isn't it? She was a lovely lady who come out at short notice to pick me up, so I didn't have the heart to tell her she'd been duped by the media and was making a fool of herself.

Because back on planet earth, we're not doomed. Really, we're not.

The risk of dying from eating vegetables contaminated with e-coli is so vanishingly small that even the most basic concept of statistics and the balance of risk would reveal that it's not worth boycotting anything.

The trouble is that the media love a scare story. It creates headlines, excitement and a hunger (pardon the pun) for updates - thus drawing in more viewers, desperate to know what the latest catastrophe is. Everyone loves a disaster, after all. And all disasters, real or not, are filtered to us through the media. In a way, disasters are media events. A true disaster, like the Japanese tsunami, doesn't need media hype. It rises above it.

It's hard to fill a 24-hour news station with new stories. Just watch Sky News for a few hours to see what I mean. The lack of news stories they have to work with is embarrassing for them - so they endlessly recycle old ones and pad them out with 'experts' - talking heads who usually either state the obvious, repeat the story in a different way or best of all speculate as to the worst-case scenario. At least Sky has advert breaks to help them - BBC News 24 doesn't have that luxury so 24 hour news is an even tougher gig for them.

Back to e-coli. If people just stopped to think for a moment they could compare the number of people who die early from diseases and conditions brought on by poor diet with those who have (or who might) keel over from e-coli in cucumbers. Or is it tomatoes? No-one really knows. Scientists' apparent helplessness in the face of this unseen and sinister killer, the image of complacent governments and poor ordinary Joes who pay the penalty all fit neatly into the plot followed by a thousand movies which have numbed us into idiocy.

In fact if the entire British population ate more veg they might live longer and healthier lives instead of clogging up the NHS with their clogged up arteries. I will now state the bleedin' obvious: that eating more veg will outweighs by a factor of thousands any risk from stray bacteria. I think people do actually know that.

But people don't want to hear that. The thousands who die from heart disease each year slip away unnoticed by the a media whose attention span has become so short that if daily updates aren't forthcoming the story will fade to black. Taxi drivers don't notice the death rate from poor diet. Those thousands of corpses are invisible.

Can you imagine the hysteria and panic if 'obesity' was classified as a communicable disease rather than a state of health? Imagine if it was some sort of virus or bacteria, never heard of before. Infection with this new virus is proven to lead to debilitation and early death, and was spread by apparently negligent and complacent producers, distributors and governments. The obesity emergency would be on Sky News round the clock, with talking heads and government action plans to tackle it.

But it doesn't work like that. People don't want to face the responsibility they have for their own demise; it's a better disaster movie if a new virulent disease emerges from nowhere and we try to protect our loved ones with boycotts. And anyway, people hate veg so this scare suits them. When the mad cow disease scare took off people were really upset because everyone likes steak. Whatever happened to BSE? You don’t' hear much about that these days. I wonder why….

So now's a good time to stock up on cheap veg. Go ahead, it will do you good. And the prices are dropping, which makes a change. Just wash it first, will you?

AV or not to AV - that is the question

2011-04-12T14:01:00.003+01:00

I always know when a campaign is fishy when I get unsolicited mail from actors or TV 'personalities' telling me what I ought to do. Just recently I received some junk mail (in the truest sense of the word) telling me to vote 'yes' in the AV referendum. The arguments advanced were simplistic and threadbare, not because they necessarily are so but because almost all the space on the leaflet was given to photos of 'celebrities' endorsing the campaign: Steven Fry, Colin Firth, Helen Mirren and Benjamin Zephaniah amongst them. A ship of fools if ever there was one.

Steven Fry was best and most amusingly described as ' a stupid person's idea of what an intelligent person should be'. Colin Firth's acting skills seem to extend no further than the deadpan Bridget Jones/George V expression of vacuity which he employs in every role. Still, at least he has royalty-obsessed Americans to compensate for this paucity of talent by awarding him an Oscar for doing virtually nothing in a film. His 'performance' in the King's Speech reminded me of 'Bob Fleming', the Fast Show character who couldn't talk without coughing. Maybe Harry Enfield would have done a better job.

Elections are a serious business. The acting profession rarely so. So AV should be judged on its merits, not on its endorsements; on its efficacy and fairness both in its own right and relative to the FPTP system.
The precedents for the AV system are not good. At the moment the only countries in the world that have it are Fiji, Papua New Guinea and Australia. Not exactly resoundingly popular then. Australia has as much cronyism and corruption as we do, if New South Wales is anything to go by, and apparently they want to ditch AV.

There's no doubt that the British political system is totally dysfunctional and needs overhauling. I'm just unconvinced that AV is the way to do it. If anything I fear it could be used as a fig leaf to cover the failings of the current setup, and to distract from real reform.

The motives of both sides in this debate are suspect. They are supporting or opposing the Alternative Voting System (or the 'Preferential Voting System' to give it its correct name) because of the electoral advantage or disadvantage they perceive for their own favoured party. So the Tory and Labour bigwigs favour FPTP because they want general elections to keep giving them a majority in the House of Commons; the actors and their ship of fools want AV because they think 'progressive' parties will benefit; Lib Dems and some Labour supporters support it for the same reason; Lib Dems in particular are facing meltdown and hope this will rescue them (it won't). Likewise the Greens think they might gain but the BNP fear they will be shut out; these two parties are campaigning accordingly.

You couldn’t expect politicians to be any less cynical, with all their hypocritical cant about 'fairness'. They want power, pure and simple. The advantage of AV is that voters of smaller parties cannot be so easily ignored - the preferential transfer in the second and successive rounds ensures this, and their supporters have made much of it. Except that they can be ignored in many seats, as recent studies widely quoted in the press, have shown. Studies like this in the Guardian have shown that election results might only change relative to FPTP where voting margins are tight.

But this is where some unfairness seems to creep in, which to me makes AV less convincing. Given that the least popular candidates are eliminated first, their second preferences get counted before the second preferences of voters of popular parties. So if you vote Green, BNP or UKIP as a first choice you have a handy second vote that you know will also count. The second choices of voters who have returned the more popular candidates are extremely unlikely to have their second choices counted at all. Fair? Perhaps not.
The alleged 'advantage' of FPTP, that it returns 'strong' governments, seems a little disingenuous, however. The question has to be asked: strong for whom? For the electorate? Maybe. But I think it's 'strong' for the party machines and apparatchiks who inhabit them, don't you think? I mentioned that the British system is dsyfunctional, but so are its parties. They long ago ceased to faithfully represent large swathes of the electorate as they scrambled around for the mythical 'centre ground', aping each other in their attempts to do so. (Cameron, remember, was the 'heir to Blair'.)

What needs reform is not so much our electoral system, which allows just one choice for everyone, but our outdated political parties and our absurd parliamentary whips. The main British parties are walking cadavers, zombie parties which should have died a long time ago due to lack of support and membership but which are kept alive by dodgy millionaires, state subsidy and an uncritical and flattering press. Have you seen the membership of the Conservatives? If you were aged 65 in that club you'd be considered youthful. Labour long ago abandoned the working class.

The problem with AV (and any system other than FPTP) is that it encourages policy-making and deal-cutting after an election, rather than before it. So any coalition is not really tested at the polls by the electorate, but rather put together by people like Lord Mandelson or Eric Pickles. Coalitions should be formed before a vote if possible, rather than after it. The last election was unusual in that coalitions are so rarely needed in a FPTP system. And the outcome was pretty fair - the public wanted Labour out, but didn't quite have enough faith in the Tories. Hence compromise.

FPTP is far from perfect but the alternatives, especially AV, encourage deal-making and resultant policies which are tested less frequently (if ever) at the polls. Alliances made this way can do a disservice to democracy. The Jenkins-Heath agreement of the 1970s pushed through liberalising policies that were concocted after elections and untested at the polls. The Fast forward to today and policies on Europe, tax and health that are currently being pursued are equally untested by public opinion. AV is unlikely to change any of this, and may make it worse.

The two main parties have had their day and should, like the old Liberals or Whigs, be consigned to the dustbin of history. I think Britain needs a new (or several new) right-of-centre parties, and at least one new left-of-centre one. Parties outside Labour and the Tories seem to inhabit the lunatic fringe. Given that 'left' and 'right' are increasingly blurred and meaningless, especially where issues like civil liberties, armed intervention and the EU are concerned, new parties which genuinely address people's concerns would be welcome. Will they arise? It looks a long way off, but public disillusionment and falling membership may kill off the old parties.

Rather than tinker with the voting system to satisfy Nick Clegg and his Lib Dem followers, it's the party system that should be overhauled. FPTP has served us pretty well. The constitution also needs looking at. In the USA, one of Britain's first colonies, they have kept the old English political system. An elected Executive, answerable to an elected Legislature, with an (appointed) Judiciary to interpret the Constitution. It has its flaws but MPs in the US (that is Members of Congress) actually have something to do: they hold the President to account. It's the checks and balances system. By contrast our MPs are like overpaid drones, doing their parties' bidding, beholden to the whips and ignoring their constituents. Corruption is rife (or 'expenses' as we euphemistically call it). All MPs here do is select a Prime Minister (although if Ed Milliband becomes PM they won't even have done that).

The old parties' monopoly on democracy should be broken, and the parties themselves allowed to whither and die. Elected primaries to select MPs would be a positive start. FPTP should be kept, or if replaced at all then a full-blooded PR system should be properly considered; not this fudge, foisted on us merely as a sop to the soppy Lib Dems.

And as for those actors….

Benjamin who? Apparently he's a black Rastafarian 'poet', whose best known poem refers contemptuously to George V's daughter as 'Mrs Queen', which of course instantly endeared him to the liberal establishment. Amusingly, the 'yes' campaign dropped his black face from the leaflets distributed outside London. They didn't want to upset the whiteys in the shires, obviously. Faced with this blatant example of racism the 'yes' campaign scrambled around for a justification, which of course never materialised. Perhaps this gives lie to one of the 'yes' campaigns central claims, that AV will shut out the BNP and other extremist parties. But FPTP already shuts them out, so what's the argument?

There is an absurdity in taking advice on whom or what to vote for from vacuous 'actors', most of whom, like Steven Fry, are vastly overrated, overpaid and under-talented. Why would anyone take advice from someone whose 'job' is pretending to be something or someone they're not? I remember several years ago getting another leaflet with a message from Fry telling me that it was a 'frightening thought' that the Conservatives could soon win power from Labour. Frightening for Mr Fry, perhaps. How much more of taxpayers' and licence fee-payers' money does he want?

Sometimes absurd heights can be scaled: during the 2004 US Presidential Election, Guardian readers were encouraged to write to voters in an American state, urging them to reject George W Bush. Their arrogance was breathtaking. If I were an American I doubt I'd have been W's biggest fan, but I was still delighted to see the voters of the state (whose name escapes me) resoundingly returning George W. I believe some strategists think that the Guardian readers' campaign might just have swung it for him. Now there's a thought, Benjamin.

Ed Milliband's real speech at the TUC march

2011-03-29T15:49:00.002+01:00

Comrades -
It is truly an honour and a privilege to be standing here in front of you all. A privilege for you, that is. For I won't actually be joining in your march. That would be too embarrassing for me.

Yet it's good to be amongst friends. My own MPs didn't actually elect me, you see, but you - the trade unions - put me where I am today. So I know who my real friends are! I owe you, and we both know it. So this is how I'm going to pay you back: with words, platitudes, and the total absence of alternative spending plans. But I know you will forgive me!

So comrades we all know what we are against - because it's easy to be against things. We are against these savage Tory cuts! Now I know that Alistair Darling, and the Labour party, said that we would make £52 billion pounds of cuts - we said so very publicly in the election campaign. But with your help, we can persuade the public to forget that. Yes brothers, we must forget, and so must they. So I stand with you in opposing each and every single cut this Coalition government is making, but like you I will never ever spell out exactly how the public sector will be reduced. And with your help I won't mention public sector pensions. Ok maybe I did just there, but that's the only time!

I stand with you nurses who are marching against these cuts. So what if the Tories ring-fenced health spending and we didn't? So what that if we'd won the election the NHS would be suffering a more severe spending squeeze than it currently is? I want it both ways and will criticise them anyway. But that doesn't matter. And I know you'd never embarrass me by bringing this up!

I stand with you teachers, firefighters and council workers. I won't tell you which cuts I would have made had I become Prime Minister, or how my cuts would have affected you, or how many of you I would have sacked. Now is not the time for that.

The Tories say that there is no alternative. But I tell you this: there IS an alternative, and that is to implement cuts that are almost as big, but at a slightly slower pace whilst increasing taxes a little more than the Coalition. No-one knows whether our plan or the Coalition's plan is the best course, because economists are divided and the lessons of history are not clear-cut. If you'll pardon the pun! I know you will. Being in opposition allows me and my friends to protest about every action the Coalition makes without spelling out the alternative or saying what we would have done. Such is the exorbitant privilege of opposition! You guys know a thing or two about that, so that makes me feel special.

But look at the team I have assembled around me. Alistair Darling made some mistakes but he was quite a capable chap, who made the right calls when the banks collapsed. So of course I got rid of him. I brought in someone, Alan Johnson, whose experience as a postman and union man was just what Britain needed. When he left I brought in Ed Balls. I brought him on board not because I was desperate but because I needed fresh ideas. And who better to bring fresh thinking that the man who was part and parcel of Gordon Brown's brilliant stewardship of the economy, and who bears the stamp of all the policies that he enacted?

Comrades I know this is not a time for clichés, but I feel the hand of history on my shoulder, I really do. You know me as a man of principle. You all know, for instance, how I suddenly discovered that the Iraq war was wrong, just in time for my campaign for the leadership of the Labour Party. But although it was so very wrong to bomb Saddam Hussein, it's now so very right to bomb Colonel Gadaffi. I don't really understand this whole Libya thing, but then neither do you and neither does anyone else in the country. So again I feel at home. You see, we in the Labour Party decided that Colonel Gaddafi was statesmanlike, as my learned colleague Jack Straw once described him, so it would be just plain embarrassing if we didn't follow the government line now. Apparently someone even kissed him in a tent in Libya once, but I can't remember who that was. Better we forget about that too!

Most of you are well-meaning and honest people, worried about the future. I assume you all know that some cuts will have to be made somewhere in the public sector. Where and when and how deep and how fast these cuts will be made is what we need to debate, but we all know that public spending has to be constrained. So those of you who have placards saying 'no cuts' must just be Tory agent provocateurs who have infiltrated this movement to discredit it.

So here we are, standing in Hyde Park in 2011. Today we find common cause with the suffragettes and with Martin Luther King's civil rights movement. People will say that that's a ludicrous comparison because the circumstances and issues are completely different. They are obviously wrong, comrades. Because taking child benefits away from people who already earn shed loads is exactly the same as the colour bar in Alabama! And denying women the vote is exactly the same as denying the navy its Harriers or the middle classes their Sure Start Centres. We are also the same as the anti-Apartheid campaigners in South Africa. That of course makes me Nelson Mandela. Now I'm not old enough to remember what all that was about, but my big brother David is, and he told me that there was lots of racism and stuff over there. So we are marching for that! No hang on a minute…. I mean we are against that! You know what I mean.

So comrades I salute you. You have been a useful bandwagon for me to jump on - on jump on it I have. March the good march, and fight the good fight. Well, not literally. That would make things awkward for me. Think of the TV pictures! We have to squeeze the rich bankers - but not local authority chief executives, and especially not MPs. The Tory millionaires of the Bullingdon club don’t' know anything about how public sector workers have to survive. But I, with my private schooling, Oxbridge education and entire career spent in politics, am completely different. And remember, I'm one of you. You can rest assured, comrades, that if I ever win power, if I ever step through the polished door of Number 10 Downing Street, that I will drop you all like a hot brick. Thank you.

There's no such thing as humanitarian war

2011-03-23T10:33:00.003Z

The UN Security Council authorised 'all necessary means' to protect civilians in Libya from Colonel Gadaffi's forces. Don't let's kid ourselves, this is not just about patrolling airspace. The UN Security Council has voted for WAR.

Vince Cable has said that this intervention is justified - and is different from Iraq - in that it is an intervention made on humanitarian grounds. Now I like Vince Cable - he's a nice chap. And even if he didn't quite predict the credit crunch as is often claimed, he was at the very least a voice of reason while Gordon Brown was indulging the banking sector and binging on credit.

But he's either hopelessly badly informed about international relations, or more probably just being disingenuous. There is no such thing as purely 'humanitarian' intervention (a more honest term is 'humanitarian war'). There can't be, for the simple reason that states large and small have as the purpose of their existence the imperative to act in their own interests. As someone wise once said; there are no friends in international politics - just interests.
Humanitarian intervention to stop genocide, or egregious human rights abuses that demean us all are right, and honourable - in principle. I’m all in favour of them – in principle. Even if a humanitarian good is the by-product, or secondary consequence of conflict I would welcome it – in principle.The problem is, of course, that principles, however high-minded, often run into reality.

Libya is not a case of one state attacking or invading another, as in Saddam Hussein’s 1990 invasion and annexation of Kuwait. The Libyan conflict is internal in nature and this causes problems for would-be interventionists.

Morally it is desirable for a better, safer world that madmen and murderers are at the very least stopped, better rolled back and ideally toppled. Even if the bloodshed is ‘internal’ to a nation state. That is the ideal. The problem is that the world is highly complex and inter-related, with a law of unintended consequences constantly hovering over every violent action, even if it seems clearly morally justified.

Conflicts often have religious, ethnic or tribal dimensions, stretching across borders, complicated by historical grievances, political and economic disenfranchisement, poverty, injustice and a sense of unfairness, and almost always a failure of political systems. The last of these is the most crucial. There may be monsters, but a polity that works would constrain them. Weak, failing or non-existent political systems, parties, elections and enfranchisement is frequently a causal factor, or at least a complicating one, in internal wars and conflicts. Libya is a case in point. And this makes the application of force to ‘protect’ or ‘save’ people a very blunt instrument indeed.

If I saw a poor man being beaten on the street by thugs I would intervene, or at least seek help. But the law of unintended consequence is very inconsequential indeed in this case. The tiny scale of the conflict ensures this. I’m assuming that street thuggery has few, if any, of the symptoms and causes outlined above. International war is a very different proposition.

On a practical level, going to war for humanitarian purposes is highly risky and rarely clear-cut. For a start the world cannot be divided into goodies and baddies quite so neatly. Take the genocide in Rwanda in the 1990s. The world stood by and did nothing while millions were murdered by howling mobs. Bill Clinton was widely blamed, even though the US didn’t actually arm or participate. America the superpower was expected to intervene. (That’s the thing about America – they’re damned if they do and damned if they don’t). He has since said (apparently) that it’s one of his biggest regret. But on whose side should ‘we’ (the international community) have intervened? The Tutsis, against the Hutus? But what about when the boot was on the other foot and the Hutus were being chopped up? Should we have suddenly switched sides? Things are rarely that simple. And in the case of Rwanda, air strikes would not have stopped a few guys going into small villages and murdering with machetes. There were no large armoured columns for cruise missiles to hit. No – it would have taken a massive ground force, thousands strong, to take over the entire country and ‘keep the peace’. They would soon have made enemies, been the focus of attack and sucked into an ethnic war.

Personally I would still have favoured intervention in Rwanda – but it would have had to have been African troops, backed by the only force that could give them credibility – not the toothless UN, but NATO. But that’s the problem – NATO would have much to lose from such an open-ended and poorly-defined mission. And African states are amongst the most corrupt and kleptocratic on earth. There were few good options.

Wars aren't cheap; even minor skirmishes cost money and lives. There are the attendant risks: mission creep, defeat or stalemate, casualties, public scepticism and opposition, PR disasters, spiralling costs, national humiliation. Then there are the certainties: unforseen consequences and 'blowback'. I can fully accept that wars can, in specific circumstances, ease human suffering; which we're lead to believe is the purpose of humanitarian wars. But wars by their very nature are unpredictable. Even with the best will in the world no-one can predict where they will lead. And somebody, somewhere has to take these costs and risks.

A lot of people seem to think that there are lots of positive and encouraging precedents for this action. But there are not.

Take the Second World War was absolutely not fought for humanitarian reasons – to blunt or halt the ‘Final Solution’ any more than it was to ease the suffering of the peoples occupied and oppressed by the Nazis. These were fortunate by-products of the war’s central aim: the defeat of Nazi Germany. In fact a huge compromise had to be made to ensure this aim – a pact with the devil, Stalin’s USSR, without which we may not have triumphed. WW2 seems to have clouded the judgment of many people, probably because the Nazis were so heinously evil. But we blundered into war in September 1939 because German expansion threatened the delicate balance of power in Europe upon which British trade and prosperity rested. It really was just that, not a milky concern for the Czechs, Poles and Slovaks, that pushed a reluctant Britain into war. That doesn’t detract from the undoubted moral good of liberating (some) of the occupied peoples of Europe from the Nazis, but please don’t think that’s why we went to war.

Other quoted precedents are NATO’s bombing of Kosovo and Serbia. This was ostensibly to stop ethnic cleansing. It eventually did, although it initially accelerated it. It was the threat of a ground invasion that seemed to bring Milosovic to heel. But was it really as simple as that? It seems to me as though the threat of a wider Balkan conflict, possibly spreading across the Mediterranean to Greece, Turkey and even Italy was the deciding factor. Ethnic strife was a causal factor in these considerations. For sure the halt to ethnic cleansing was a laudable humanitarian aim, but it was the halt of Serbian nationalism and expansion that was the real aim. NATO couldn’t allow it any more, Milosovic’s war aims were too broad for the alliance to stomach. Ethnic cleansing crystallised that in their minds and fed outrage in the media, but there is evidence that all sides in the conflict practiced brutality.

So this leaves us with a very thin case for humanitarian war. The term is close to an oxymoron. It doesn’t detract from the moral case for halting Gadaffi’s campaign of oppression, which I believe is justified, but I think it’s important we’re honest about the real reasons. David Cameron came closest to enunciating this when he referred to how Britain (and Europe) could not tolerate a failed gangster state festering away just on the edge of the Mediterranean and exporting its human and political fallout to the continent. Well it was good he said that, because that’s the real reason we’re at war. He should have continued with the theme and said a little less about how this is a mercy mission to save the inhabitants of Benghazi from genocide, even though it’s great that we’ve accomplished that. I don’t believe it’s a war for Libya’s oil, if it was we could back the ‘stronger horse’, Gadaffi, and have BP’s contracts intact. But we haven’t.

If we want to make a serious case for purely humanitarian wars we need a radical new international agreement on the exact circumstances for intervention that covers the whole world, with no exceptions. The UN will never accomplish this because the great powers that hold the reigns have widely diverging interests. Until such an agreement is reached, the West should seek to promote democracy and good governance through trade, knowledge transfer and open markets, and save bombing for when it really and truly is the least worst option.

Labour have got lucky

2011-03-15T22:11:00.001Z

Some guys have all the luck. And some parties have it too. And, despite being the progenitors of the worst financial mess in living memory, Labour have actually had more luck with the timing of economic cycles than the Conservatives.

The Governor of the Bank of England said last year "whoever wins [the 2010] election will be out of power for a whole generation because of how tough the fiscal austerity will have to be". That’s Labour’s first slice of luck - they don’t have to clean up the mess they’ve created. That’s been left instead to the other two parties. Having laid waste to much of the nation’s finances Labour can now sit back and watch as the Coalition (more specifically the Conservatives) get the blame for fiscal retrenchment – that’s ‘cuts’ in plain English.

But history repeats itself. In 1979 the outgoing Labour Government left Mrs Thatcher to take over a country in economic chaos. Debt, inflation, strikes. Britain was known as the ‘Sick Man of Europe’. All this and an IMF bailout 3 years before. Not a million miles from where we are today. The Conservatives embarked on a period of squeezing the money supply and restoring financial responsibility. It was painful but it worked.

Fast forward to 2011. The Coalition have implemented cuts, which are severe, but in fact take public spending back only to 2005 levels. The UK is only reducing the rate at which we are borrowing - and no-one wants to admit this. But Labour can still contrast the ‘cuts’ of today with the spending policies of their tenure. This is their second slice of luck: everyone's forgotten the cuts that Labour would have had to make. The narrative has been set: Tory cuts versus Labour spending. Ed Balls was the driving force behind much of Gordon Brown’s folly, but everyone’s kind of forgotten that now. Why? Because he's not the one making any cuts!

So Labour have got away with the preposterous strategy of criticizing each and every spending cut while refusing to spell out a single cut that they would themselves have made. Alistair Darling claimed that Labour would indeed make billions of pounds of cuts, just they would not make them as quickly as the Conservatives proposed to. Ok then: what are they? Perhaps someone can know when they've told us.

My travel guide to Prague

2011-03-02T21:24:00.000Z

Prague has a bit of everything - history, culture, food and drink and although not as cheap as in the 1990s is still relatively good value......

Read the full article

Channel 4's report on Local Councils efforts to save money

2011-03-02T20:59:00.001Z

Having just watched today's Channel 4 News article on how local councils are taking different approaches towards the cuts demanded of them, it's pretty clear that some frontline services to the public can be safeguarded if only councils make the right choices.

It's easy for councils to blame central government for their cuts. In a way they're right - they get subsidised by them. Even Conservative councils are making pleas for extra cash. But the country has been living beyond its means in quite a spectacular way for a while now (I mean the deficit, not the debt - don't confuse them!). So something has to give. The question is - should it be meals-on-wheels or should it be coordinators and PR employees?

Dorset, Birmingham and Blackpool Councils have shown that there IS a way to safeguard frontline services and simultaneously cut costs. It involves sacrifices made by staff to save money - sharing jobs, taking a few days' unpaid leave, taking pay cuts. The leader of Blackpool council stated on the programme that the idea of pay cuts to save staff jobs was proposed by the staff themselves - much to his surprise. He also said that if they accepted such measures he would take a commensurate pay cut. Obviously he earns more than them, but it's an example that maybe other council leaders could follow.

Contrasted with that on the programme was the attitude of staff at Southampton council who, a UNITE spokesman said, were ready to strike rather than be 'bullied' into accepting pay cuts or unpaid leave - even though the council had told them that the alternative was being sacked. The Channel 4 interviewer asked him the blindingly obvious question: isn't it better to accept some pay cuts rather than lose your job? No, he said. the Council's proposals were 'blackmail'. No wonder fewer and fewer people take the trade unions seriously.

Of course councils could save plenty by sacking press officers, cheerleading development officers and various other 'non jobs' that Eric Pickles has quite rightly highlighted. Manchester Council was recently caught spending hundreds of thousands of pounds on sculptures - it turned out that some of it was donated from private sources - but not all of it. Channel 4's Factcheck site casts doubt on the ability of councils to make the sort of savings that Pickles demands. Channel 4's problem is that central government can't define what a 'non job' is. Well of course they can't. The thing about efficiency is that it's intuitive - it relies on common sense. I've worked for local councils (in London) and I've worked for private companies. The difference is that local councils have a culture of inefficiency and waste which you really have to see to believe. They are also obsessed with their public image and with spinning propaganda to promote themselves amongst their voters. Common sense is thin on the ground in these places.

But can all the efficiencies in the world shield save enough to shield front-line services and also safeguard the employees' jobs? It seems unlikely. No matter how much councils save there will always be services that are compromised. And there needs to be enough honesty to admit that the poorest and most vulnerable will probably bear the brunt of cuts. They tend to rely more on the state and local government than people working in the private sector so cuts to services will hit them harder. Perhaps if central government demands cuts of councils and makes a convincing case for their necessity (which I believe they have in principle, although the practice is still up for debate) they should also look at ways to mitigate the effect on the most vulnerable. Perhaps reform of the tax credit system, savings vehicles or reward for private companies that take up the slack are ideas worth looking into. In an ideal world there would be no cuts to meals-on-wheels and nursing homes.Councils have a duty to try and protect them by being efficient and innovative, and central Government can try and soften the blow by siimilar means.

A lesson from history - you can't spend your way out of recession

2011-02-28T22:39:00.001Z

Those who fail to understand the mistakes of the past are doomed to repeat them. In the worst financial crisis since the Second World War, there is a clamour in some quarters - particularly from some sections of the Labour Party, which bequeathed us this mess - that 'stimulus' is the way to blast our way out of recession. Spend the money and you stimulate demand. It sounds seductive. But who said this:

"We used to think that you could spend your way out of a recession and increase employment by cutting taxes and boosting government spending. I tell you in all candour that that option no longer exists, and in so far as it ever did exist, it only worked on each occasion since the war by injecting a bigger dose of inflation into the economy, followed by a higher level of unemployment as the next step."

It was actually James Callaghan, speaking at the Labour Party Conference on 28th September 1976.

3 years later the top rate of income tax reached 98%. Did it work? Did it hell.

Sainsbury's Boss is Right - There's no such thing as 'unhealthy' food

2011-02-24T22:12:00.002Z

Sainsbury's Chief Executive caused a storm a few days ago by saying that 'there's no such thing as unhealthy food'.

"Well he would say that, wouldn't he?" was the collective response of many, and in particular from MPs concerned at the obesity timebomb that will soon explode, or maybe has already exploded, Mr Creosote-like, across the UK.

But the thing is - he's technically right.

No single item of food is 'healthy' or 'unhealthy' - it's only overall diets that can be classed as 'healthy' or 'unhealthy.'

So a cream doughnut, or a slice of chocolate cake, or a high-salt, high saturated fat microwaved meal won't kill you or make you unhealthy - by itself. If these are eaten once in a blue moon as part of an overall diet that is high in fresh fruit and veg, quite high in wholemeal carbs, fairly high in good quality protein and moderate in low-fat dairy then they're fine. Absolutely fine.

A carrot by itself won't do you any good; taken in isolation amongst a high fat, high salt, high sugar diet it is too small a portion to affect you for the better. In fact if you just lived on carrots and nothing else you would be sick as a dog. As part of the overall diet outlined above, however, carrots are very good for you indeed.

So in fact Justin King is technically correct. But this doesn't quite let his store, Sainsbury's, off the hook. Because a quick (or detailed) look through their shelves will reveal that the overall range of their products is pretty unhealthy. Like most large superstores they have a wide range of fruit and veg. So far so good. But a vast range of products they sell are highly processed, highly refined, high in salt, sugar and saturated fat. Even their breakfast cereals are too high in salt. (Although a lot of the blame for this lies with the manufacturers.)

Supermarkets are right to give consumers choice, and politicians are wrong to tell people what to eat. They should mind their own business. Providing people with enough information to make informed choices is fine, however. I don't think many people know, for example, that breakfast cereals in this country contain more salt than the equivalent products, sold by the same producers, in Australia. National tastes no doubt play a part. (Go to Asian countries and you'll notice that their soft drinks are much sweeter than in the West; that's how they like them over there.)

A financial incentive would probably be the best cure for national obesity. If everyone paid into a national health insurance scheme, then the premiums would go up or down depending on lifestyle choice. If you lowered your cholesterol your premiums would fall; if you did less exercise and piled on the pounds then the amount you paid would increase. A pretty powerful incentive. But when all health treatment is 'free', regardless of the damage you've been inflicting on your body through your lifestyle choices, then there's less incentive to make those choices healthy ones. Our health system breeds unhealthiness. A European-style insurance system might address it. But that's an argument for another day.

Senior Lib Dems express doubt about the Coalition. Big Deal!

2010-12-22T15:18:00.002Z

Vince Cable has been caught out expressing doubts about Coalition policy, and saying that if he disagreed too much, he could resign. A few other Lib Dem MPs have similarly been recorded saying they are unsure about some policies, notably those on tuition fees and the cuts. The BBC has been all over the story, and rushing to interview Labour figures about it. Aside from the amazing lapses which led Cable and the others to just shoot their mouths off to total strangers, I suspect no-one outside Westminster quite understands what all the fuss is about. The nation yawns, you might say.

Ed Milliband (I actually wrote 'David Milliband' by mistake there, it still hasn't really sunk in that anyone could make D. Milliband look mature) has been jumping around like a rabbit on steroids desperately trying to tell us that the Coaltion is now a sham. Come again, Ed?

All parties are coalitions, to an extent. The Labour party most certainly is, after all without trade union backing the absurd Ed would never have been thrust blinking and trembling into the limelight. Remember the agonising over the long road to reform that Kinnock, and then Tony Blair, took their party on before they were able to affix the label 'New' to it? The splits between Blair and Brown's supporters only served to highlight Labour's divisions.

The Conservatives are basically a coalition between Eurosceptics (now in the ascendance) and Ken Clark-style Europhiles. They are also a coalition between the socially libertarian and socially conservative wings, the former being the more natural bedfellows of the Lib Dems. And of course the Lib Dems grew out of the 'Alliance' party, that of David Steel and David Owen ('the two Davids').

Given that the Con-Lib Dem Coaltion government is therefore a coalition of coalitions, what is remarkable is how well it has managed and how cohesive it has so far been. Even the tuition fee controversy didn't collapse it (which I thought it might). Vince Cable, Nick Clegg and the other Lib Dem members rather like being big cheeses now, swanning round in ministerial limousines and the like. But everyone - and I mean everyone - knows that they are (by dint of the election results) the junior partner and therefore that there is only so far that they can swim with the Conservative's tide. Push them too far and they'll leave. No sh*t, Sherlock. Cable was just saying what Cameron and other Tories (and the country) know full well.

Perhaps the real reason that Ed is so breathless with faux excitement at all this is because it is (for him) a welcome distraction from the policy wasteland that Labour has become. He is a nonenity. Vacuous, pointless, policy-less. Labour haven't budged much in the opinion polls, mostly because the country realises that they left Britain in a debt-fuelled mess and have nothing coherent or meaningful to say any more.

Just what doees Ed Milliband stand for? What defines him? What does he even believe? With Tony Blair it was 'New Labour'. With Thatcher it was, well, Thatcherism. With Cameron it's the Coalition, cuts and realism on the foreign stage. I'm not saying it's the right policies, just that people are beginning to work him out. His 'Big Society' idea hasn't caught on yet - it might still, but it was overshadowed by the recession during the election campaign, and 'Bigotgate'. Which brings us to Gordon Brown. What did he stand for? That's easy. He stood for boom and bust of the most extreme kind, light-touch regulation of banking, debt bubbles, selling off the gold, raiding the pensions, an unsustainable housing boom and sending the army into battle without having the deep-seated conviction to back them all the way. Now look what he hath wrought.

So pipe down, Ed Milliband - Vince Cable is a more experienced and honourable fellow than you'll ever be, even when you've grown a bit older. When you have something useful to say, a credible alternative to present or policies that amount to more than just carping from the sidelines, then maybe you'll have earned the right to be taken seriously.

Some students have changed the world for the better. But not these ones.

2010-12-20T16:49:00.003Z

I've already deconstructed the wider issues around Higher Education in this country here. I said that you can't look at the debate over rising tuition fees in isolation from wider issues in HE. But on to the recent protests themselves.

A few weeks ago my Christmas shopping was diverted by a bit of a 'kerfuffle' around Argyll Street near Oxford Circus. The whole street was blocked off by scores of police vans and no-one was being allowed through. I assumed a celebrity of some sort was visiting the Palladium, but it seemed a bit over-the-top. It was one of the days of the student protests against fee increases, but I didn't see any protestors, or any trouble at all. Oxford Street is full of noisy, slightly mad people anyway, so noisy protests are no big deal for us Londoners.

When I got back I saw the amazing story of poor old Charles and Camilla having their car 'redecorated', with them still in it. So that explained all the fuss around The Palladium. As a friend of mine said - it's our car, so we'll paintbomb it if we like! He was reminding us that we own the Royal Family, not the other way round, which is very true. The Royals only exist because we allow them to. But of course 'we' didn't paintbomb their car. If I'd been there 1 hour earlier I wouldn't have either. Some morons did. Is that the best they can do? Pretty tame, I'd say. Have a look at Greece lately to see what real rioters can do. I remember being in London for the poll tax riots and Broadwater Farm riots - now that was real violence.

Looking out across the 20th Century, student protests have challenged, and changed the world. The students of Tiananmen Square challenged the might of the Chinese Communist party and demanded freedom, democracy and and open society. The world watched in awe. The students were then massacred by one of the most oppressive and repellent regimes on earth, while the world looked on and lifted not a finger to help them. But I believe that they did not die in vain. One day the Chinese Communist party, with all its apparatus of terror and oppression, will itself die, and China and its people will be free.

On my trip to Prague earlier this year I visited the Museum of Communism with all its horrors. Pride of place there was a video telling the story of protest, and victory, against communism. The heroes of 1968, and a new generation of students in 1989 who took on the communist regime, took the beatings and the water cannon, and won. So it is that students all over the world have been in the vanguard of some of humanity's most important struggles of the 20th century. I salute them, and I am humbled by them.

Makes the tossers who painted old Charles's car look a little bit wimpish, doesn't it? Morally, as well as physically wimpish.

Er, and then we come to the British students of 2010. Protesting against....what exactly? War? Communism? No such luck. They are protesting against reforms which would mean that they pay their fair share towards their continuing education, have the subsidies they get from people less fortunate than themselves reduced and are given repayment terms after they start earning that are possibly the most generous offered to any group in society. Oh dear.

Let's look at the claims, and the facts. Protestors claim that these reforms will turn HE into the preserve of the rich and that poor students will be deterred by higher fees. How on earth can that be true? The poorest will be given non-repayable grants of £3,250 (an increase on what they get now). There will be a new National Scholarship Programme for students of more modest means – offering free first year or free foundation year. So that's that argument demolished then. Not that it was hard to do.

What about the so-called 'squeezed middle'? It seems that protestors are agitated that a system requiring them (and future students) to pay back some of the cost of their degrees will....what? I've heard all sorts of stuff: stop them getting a mortgage, have them living on the bread line, being poor forever etc etc. The main argument seems to be that 'poor' students will not be able to go to uni. It's all garbage.

Ok - say for example you graduated and earned £25k pa. That would mean you'd pay back £360/year (£6.92/week). How in God's name is £6.92 a week going to 'deter' anyone? You could pay that by switching to a cheaper mobile phone contract, or something equally simple. The actual breakdown is this:

Any graduate earning under £41k will have an interest rate set at 0.6%+RPI

Anyone earning over £41k will pay 3%+RPI
An example: Someone with an income of £45,000 will contribute £2,160/year (£41.54/week).

That's a blooming amazing deal. Nothing like having an actual real-world debt of £35k now is it?

The most eye-catching thing is that if you don't earn enough you don't even have to pay it all back! If you haven't finished paying for it after 30yrs (perhaps you arent always working), then the debt is wiped out.
So that's the bottom line: is £6.92 a week a 'deterrent' to a degree, is it oppressive, is it unfair, does it create a 'two-tier' HE system, does it treat anyone unfairly? Does it heck.

I say again: HOW IS PAYING BACK £6.92 A WEEK A DETERRENT TO DOING A DEGREE??!

The Coalition's reforms are fair. Anyone who is 'deterred' by these plans perhaps isn't suited to HE because they haven't thought long-term or seen the value of education. Or perhaps they've already made up their minds and can't break out of their mindset.

Some of the commentary about the protests has been unfair. The vast majority of the students have been good-natured and peaceful, but the students have been infiltrated by anarchist and extreme left-wing groups who use any excuse to kick up trouble. I've seen these scumbags before - at the poll tax riots, at anti-racism marches and attached like leeches to any cause perceived, however vaguely, as anti-Establishment. No doubt some students also decided to join in chucking things at the police, they are cowards but I'm confident that they are a tiny minority. If you throw a lump of concrete (or a fire extinguisher) at a police officer (or anyone else) you could kill them. Compared to their counterparts around the world, the UK police are pretty soft, I can tell you; but some of them still lose their discipline and need to be pulled up for hitting people on the skull with truncheons. Blows like that can kill. It's only ever justified if a thug tries to kill one of them with a heavy blunt instrument, or a very sharp one.

A better image for me was the sight of (very) young female students linking hands and standing unarmed and unprotected in front of an abandoned police van, to protect it from a violent mob swirling around them and preventing the thugs in the crowd from carrying out wanton violence. They were amazingly brave and principled young people; they wanted to stick to their argument and not have their march subverted by the anarchist cowards and some student thugs with their faces masked. They should be given a medal. Whatever the outcome of the tuititon fees debate, protestors such as these give me for hope for the future. They may be utterly deluded about the Government's funding plans and its effects on future students but perhaps they are worthy heirs to the students of Prague and Tiananmen Square after all.

Germans play the economics game right

2010-12-06T22:11:00.000Z

German Chancellor Angela Merkel has been pushing for bondholders to take some of the hit the next time a bank sheepishly puts its hand up and admits it's got no money. Sounds fair enough to me. Why should it be the poor old taxpayer who has to cough up every time a bailout is needed?

The Germans have got economic policy pretty well sussed. The Euro isn't a problem for them (unlike for Ireland) as it's basically the Deutschmark II. The interest rates suit them and this helps them with their exports. Exports account for more than one third of their national output, I believe. But more pertinently (for us) they actually have more of a savings culture over there, and don't regards mortgages as a vehicle for borrowing money to buy stuff you can't afford - rather it's for getting a place to live in. In fact renting is more of a way of life in Germany than in the UK. They don't make quite such a fuss as we do about 'getting on the property ladder'.

Their national economic policy is something we could learn from. They have a diversified economy, not one disproportionately reliant on the financial sector (although Frankfurt is doing pretty well). Many of their smaller industries and businesses are family-owned and run, so they pass down generations and don't rely so heavily on loans from banks. They support and nurture their manufacturers, and have an excellent apprentice system that we could do well to emulate, rather than trying to churn out graduates with degrees in vocational subjects unsuited to the market place. British industrial relations may have improved since the dark days of the 1970s but a lot of that has been due to the reforms Mrs Thatcher forced through; in Germany there is a consensus between unions and industry that has existed since the war.

It's not just about the usual image of Germanic efficiency; it's also about taking a long-term view of things, staying out of debt and investing for the future. Not so difficult really. I always remember that around the time of Euro96, when Germany knocked England out on penalties, the German team was sponsored by Mercedes-Benz; whereas the England team was sponsored by Green Flag - a breakdown company.

Ireland's pain, Euro's shame

2010-12-02T19:34:00.001Z

Ireland's Celtic Tiger is dead, a stake through its heart.

Even when the ugly truth has been exposed, people still can't admit to what has gone wrong. The Euro wasn't right for Ireland (or, by extension, for the UK). How much more proof does anyone need? The cause of the Irish crisis was, in essence, that Irish banks went on an orgy of irresponsible lending to fuel an unsustainable housing bubble. Sound familiar? Oh yes....

But here's the thing - the Euro. You can't get away from it. Well, Ireland can't anyway. And that's the problem now.

Everyone - and I mean everyone - can see that Ireland's economy diverges from the Eurozone. It is cyclically opposite, and is linked more closely to Sterling (and the dollar) than the Euro, the latter of which is in essence an expanded Deutschmark. That's why we in the UK are so lucky that we're not in D'uh-Euro (I made that one up).

The Irish elite grabbed the Euro with both hands because it enabled them to tap into a mountain of money - other people's money. In fact a lot it was British money, filtered through the EU's budget. It was money out of thin air, bought by low interest rates that had been set by the EU, for the primary benefit of the German economy, the engine of European growth, rather than the Irish economy, which is small and peripheral. The Irish people at the very least acquiesced in this fraud. They were more than willing to feed an unsustainable housing bubble by borrowing beyond their means. Remember it takes two to tango - one to lend, one to borrow.

It was the same mistake as was made in the UK, only the Euro made things much, much worse for Ireland. Stuck at the wrong interest rate, the Irish had no flexibility to ease the every tightening noose around their necks.

But let's go back to fundamentals. The European Union (formerly the EC, formerly the EEC) was always a politically-driven project. The British people have been consistently lied to by advocates of the Euro (and some EU-enthusiasts) who said that financial union does not mean political union. As has been demonstrated again and again, you can't have one without the other. That's why so much financial regulation is now coming from Brussels, aimed at the City of London.

The Euro has been built on sand. Its rules have been a sham: countries have broken the rules of fiscal discipline over and again, but got away with it if they were one of the bigger economies. You are not supposed to leave the Euro; but you are not supposed to run up huge debts as a percentage of your GDP either. You can't devalue; but you cant default either.

So now that we can see that the Euro isn't working, either the political project or the financial union will fail. Arguably the financial project is already failing, as it breaks its own rules to fit square pegs (Ireland) into round holes (the Euro). Ireland's problems (and Greece's, Portugal's and Spain's) will continue until they leave the Euro and let their currencies float again. It's not a perfect solution but it's better than what they've got.

As for the nonsense of a supra-national EU government, a 'superstate' as some call it, as advocated by the absurd (and unelected) Herman van Rumpy: it will also fail. Why? Well because financial union isn't working, for starters. But more crucially because of the following: there can be no such thing as a European democracy - because there is no such thing as a European demos.

The Pope, AIDS and contraception

2010-11-21T19:31:00.000Z

Pope Benedict XVI has changed - or perhaps clarified - the Catholic Church's position on the use of contraception. He had previously reaffirmed the teaching set out since The Second Vatican Council, and reinforced vigorously by hsi predecessor Pope John Paul II, that contraception was 'intrinsically evil'.

In an apparent softening of Church teaching, Pope Benedict said that under some circumstances - such as where one partner is HIV-positive - the use of condoms could be sanctioned. It's a welcome shift, even if some commentators are trying to maintain that it isn't. I've always thought that the Church's stance on this was not logical or consistent, and has not kept up with science or societal changes.

But before everyone yells down the Pope for spreading AIDS in Africa let's just remember that if everyone followed the Catholic Church's teaching (abstinence, faithfulness, marriage and monogomy) there would be no such thing as an AIDS epidemic. It would never have become so destructive, and millions of people who are dead or dying would be alive and well. Unrealistic? Maybe. Idealistic? Definitely. But why not aim high?

In fact those countries that have made progress in the battle against AIDS, such as Uganda, have done so not by just chucking condoms around but by a targeted and intelligent campaign promoting monogamy, contraception and education. The Catholic Church is the second biggest developmental organisation in the world (after the United Nations) and does amazing work in the Developing World, much of it in the field of education. I hope the Church will continue to be a force for good and this doctrinal revision can only help.

Student funding

2010-11-12T15:02:00.000Z

A good old-fashioned riot in London the other day. I remember the Poll Tax riots of the 1990s and this one was pretty small by comparision. The poll tax riots were the sharp end of a wider dissatisfaction throughout society; whereas yesterday's riots, frankly, were not.

You have to look much more widely at the whole direction of British educational policy in the last 20 years to put the 'student debt' crisis into perspective. You can't look at the problematic issue of student funding in isolation.

It's said that dustmen have to fund the degrees of doctors because they might need them sometime. They might; but doctors earn such high salaries (GPs up to £100k) that there's no reason such future high earners shouldn't at least partly fund their own education, restrospectively. A family member of mine, a nurse, often asks why she should fund economics degrees when people with 2:1s in Economics will earn a lot more than her. So the Government's principle is sound: if you earn more than a non-graduate, pay back the cost of your degree, but only when you earn enough (over £21k now, it used to £16k when I gradutated in 1995) and then only in small increments, over a long period of time. Perfectly reasonable.

No-one seems to mind taking on £150k of debt to buy a house; it's seen as an investment. In continental Europe people tend to rent more; this means that property ownership is not as common as it is here, but they don't have so much debt. University education should be an investment in your future - so why not take on some debt, especially as the repayment terms are so much better than mortgages? Can you imagine a mortgage where you don't have to pay each month if you don't earn enough? It's all debt, but it depends on your attitude to education - is it an investment, or just a cost?

Students (and their parents, I suspect) are up in arms over the levels of debt they will be saddled with - up to £9k per year of degree, plus up to £8k living expenses per year. So they could be looking at £50k of debt. If the average graduate earns £100k more in their lifetime than a non-graduate then this is still reasonable. The problem is, as the Daily Mail pointed out in a well-researched article, is that they also have to pay back the interest on the debt. You see, when I graduated the loans were interest-free; now they're linked to inflation. That means that for an average graduate, total repayments could be nudging £90k. Suddenly that Economics degree is not looking quite as good.

So although I think students who oppose the principle of self-funding are arrogant and deluded, I can see the objection to its practical implementation. The problem, and the solution, lies in British attitudes to education.

Back in the 1990s the (then) British government deluded itself into thinking that because the US and other countries had 60% or so of 18 year-olds entering universities, we had to do the same. What they didn't understand was that in the US, the definition of 'university' is very broad indeed. The Government also didn't see why there should be a distinction between different types of degrees or institutions, so they renamed the old Polytechnics as "universities" - so that instantly the higher education participation figures looked better. Well, I think that education never stops. You NEVER stop learning, whatever you do in life. The catastrophic error was to think that full-time, 3-year-long Bachelors degrees at universities away from students' homes was the way virtually everyone should go. Why should this be so?

Everyone's heard of "Mickey Mouse" degrees. Degrees of dubious academic merit. Equine Studies, anyone? If fees deter people from allowing such rubbish to be funded as a degree it's only a good thing.

So here are some solutions. The UK Government (ie taxpayers) can't and shouldn't fund all degrees, for any subject, no matter how wealthy the backgrounds of students. That's the basic problem that students, and the NUS, can't accept. Well, they're going to have to. It's unjust and impractical. No wonder no-one takes the NUS seriously any more. They don't have a serious alternative. I don't know any OECD country that goes that far (except Scotland, and their money comes from English taxpayers. Time to repatriate our taxes, perhaps?)

So first, keep Lord Browne's principle that universities should charge what they like. The Government has watered it down to a cap of £9k a year. This doesn't make sense. No-one - not the government, not you, not me, not the Queen of England - can tell whether the price paid by students for a specific degree is 'worth it'. The only thing that will tell you is the market. If there are not enough well-paid jobs available to holders of a specific degree, applicants will dry up and therefore fees will fall. Students are intelligent and therefore have to make an informed decision. Putting artificial caps, or setting fee levels by diktat distorts this and will therefore make the problems of unemployed, or under-employed graduates, worse.

For poor students, the fees can fund bursaries. So they will probably benefit the most. The idea that high fees will entrench privilege and slow social mobility is therefore false. The rich will have to pay their own way.

What about the 'squeezed middle'? Here is where attitudes to education come into play. There is an idea that by making everyone the same, everyone will beneift. It's called socialism, folks. So: if everyone goes to university, and there is no distinction between old Polys and established universities, everyone gets the same outcome in life. Right? Er, no: wrong.

Abolishing so many grammar schools didn't help. It makes it more difficult for bright kids from poor backgrounds to reach their potential. They were abolished for ideological reasons, for social engineering. Could there be anything more contemptible than using children as a vehicle for this? Bring back the grammar schools, and put them in poor areas, not wealthy ones. The wealthy always manage ok.

Another pernicious effect of trying to engineer equality was the dumbing-down of A Levels (and GCSEs). The grades have risen relentlessly since 1989, but universities complain that the standard of maths freshers (for example) is actually declining. Industry and the CBI say the same. The A* grade has been introduced in a desperate attempt to restore credibility to this discredited exam system but more and more schools are going for the International Baccalaureate, as it is seen as apolitical, with more impartial marking. GCSEs in particular are now rigged in the sense that they have retakes, or modular exams, excessive coursework, a lowering of grade boundaries and a more lenient marking system that awards marks for effort and gives explicit guidance on how to approach questions (for maths in particular). Different exam boards, absurdly, compete with each other. So the systems need to be combined into a single exam board, all political interference removed, all modular and coursework parts reviewed, the syllabi toughened the grade boundaries restored to pre-1989 levels. If this can't be done, the whole country should drop them move to the "Bac".You don't improve kids' education by tinkering with the marking and making things easier for them in the exam hall.

The grade entries for universities have to have their rigour restored. Two "E" grades won't cut it. Three good A Level grades are what is needed. As a minimum.

Mickey Mouse degrees need to be abolished. Universities are for academic subjects only. Polys need their fomer status restored, as centres for more vocational courses, or short courses, only.

What about funding? Here are some simple solutions. Why do a full-time degree at all? Is it needed in every case? There's no reason not to do a degree part-time, while holding down a job. Possibly encourage students to study in their home town, if the course was right. This is common in Germany, for example. So some students could do a 5 or 6 year part-time degree instead of 3 years full-time. The job should, ideally, be a training ground for the students' chosen careers. If employers know they will get a graduate with a degree that is relevant and useful to them, who also has relevant work experience, they will have far more incentive to fund them with a bursary, for example. I believe that we have to get employers involved in funding higher education because they're the ones who ultimately benefit (or suffer). If they can be persuaded to contribute to the cost of degrees it would help the situation. But they need to be convinced that the subjects studied are helpful to them.

What about non-academic, or vocational courses? Degrees in media studies, travel and tourism etc. Perhaps I was a little harsh on the Equine Studies degree earlier. It's probably useful if you're into horses. (If you know what I mean.) So the government needs to massively increase apprenticeships and on-the-job learning schemes as an alternative to degrees of dubious value. Give employers tax breaks if necessary to encourage them. Apprenticeships are a big feature of 18+ education in other European countries like Germany. Degrees should be the preserve of the academically most talented, regardless of their parents' income or their socio-econmic background. Since everyone needs training we could have 100% of 19-22 year olds completing some kind education - since you need training of some sort for just about any job. There seem to be a plethora of qualifications out there - NVQs being common. Just don't pretend that everyone has to go to university. This would take the strain off universities funding every subject.

But here's the thing - education is of value in itself, even if the market doesn't support the course through adequate job opportunities. I was only talking about highly expensive 3 year full-time courses, where the market can determine fees. Why not give everyone at 18 a small grant and they can decide what to do with it: put towards a degree, put towards an apprenticeship through their employer, do multiple part-time NVQs, or save it for a degree later when students are more certain about their career choice. No need to insist that you have to do a degree at 18 if you want to be eligible for a student loan.

If the protestors have a point, it's that the loans as they stand could be more generous. Why make graduates pay back the interest as well? Abolishing interest payments would make the pill slightly less bitter.

When I graduated I had £3k of student loan to pay back. Small beer by today's standards, but I was also unable to get a job paying more than £16k for almost 3 years. It's a problem a lot of graduates may have. This can be partly addressed by adopting my suggestion of restricting Bachelors degrees to the most highly qualified A Level students, and only offering degrees in subjects that are 'traditional', rigorous subjects.

So there are some practical, and fair, solutions. I'm not saying there are too many students (although there certainly appears to be) but that if degrees don't pay you back in increased earnings then a state funded system is not sustainable. I had to laugh at the loathsome Harriet Harman talking in the Commons as if she had nothing to do with the situation. Labour introduced top-up fees. They expanded university education without thinking it through, continued the debasement of A Levels and GCSEs and left the country virtually bankrupt. People like Harman can't be taken seriously, and I hope they never will be. Nick Clegg has had a newsflash that promising things in opposition (particularly when you think you have no chance of winning) is a lot easier than implementing them. At least he's admitted it. The Tories are basically right but haven't addressed the fundamental flaws in the British education system. And remember that they introduced GCSEs and were the ones who renamed Polys as universities and started the whole rotten process.

Personally I favour self-learning, augmented by targeted part-time courses, with a healthy dose of the 'university of life' thrown in. And a degree when you can afford it. That's better for all-round development and might just get you a decent job too.

BBC1 Panorama: Are you paying too much tax?

2010-11-08T21:55:00.002Z

Today's Panorama was about the mess the HMRC have made of people's taxes. The BBC's investigation focussed on 'ordinary' people's stories - most of them receiving demands way above what they should. They also mentioned that the wealthiest taxpayers find it easier to get round the system, and that staff cuts and poor leadership is to blame.

Other reasons for the fiasco were offered: the botched IT system (why do Government IT systems always go wrong?) and the fact that the PAYE system was designed decades ago when people generally stayed in the same job for 30 years. Well if you put the government in charge of anything they tend to make a mess of it. But how about a different solution? Why not try a flat rate tax?

For a start it would simplify the system. Everyone knows what they owe, and what they should pay. Easier for them, easier for HMRC. HMRC would themselves save money as it's easier to administer the system.

I think it's likely the tax take would be higher. Even though higher-rate taxpayers are paying less...how can this be? For a start the incentive for tax avoidance would be reduced. As they said on Panorama, it's easy for the super-rich to avoid UK tax - if they are incentivised to do so. If more higher-rate taxpayers cough up, tax revenues may go up, even if they're paying lower marginal rates. Maybe. It might also encourage investment in personal savings - isn't that what we're all supposed to be doing, saving for our futures?

It's interesting that there is virtual unanimity amongst economists and economic commentators that the increase in the top level of tax to 50% will not increase the overall tax revenue. So why is the government (floowing the example set by the last Labour governement) doing it? Its all about 'fairness'.

It seems unfair that rich people don't pay more. But of course, the rich DO pay more - because they earn more. A doctor will pay more tax than a dustman, even under a flat-rate tax. A more fundamental argument is that government should not penalise success. Not everyone who has a high salary has inherited it from their daddy or got a bonus from one of the bailed-out banks in the city. They've just been successful, probably through hard work more than privilege.

Don't get me wrong, I'm not a dogmatist, nor am I approcahing this from an ideologically-driven point of view. More a practical one, and a possibility of sorting out the UK's creaking tax system. Tax cuts in isolation won't deliver growth or prosperity. Public spending, borrowing, investment - all these things have to be right. But maybe the UK should look at a flat - or at any rate a flatter - tax regime.

Mrs Thatcher's legacy -good or bad?

2010-10-16T16:55:00.001+01:00

The London Underground is the home of all things weird and loopy. It's every square inch of space is adorned with advertising, even to the extent that some of them are now digital so they can show several adverts at once.

Some people have taken to defacing posters, in an anarchistic sort of way, with their own (unpaid-for) hand-written stickers. A sort of DIY advertising - or propaganda. Some of it isn't so bad: on adverts for cosmetic surgery is plastered "you're beautiful as you are", or the more straightforward "don't pay for this shit". I'm ok with the sentiment, but what about people who genuinely need surgery, or just have the right to pay for it as they see fit? Live and let live, I say.

Anyway - I saw a more political one recently: "Trafalgar Square, the Saturday after Thatcher dies - I'll be there!" It was not a celebratory invitation. I think it was from a lunatic socialist fringe group. No British prime minister has inspired as much loathing as 'Maggie'.

Enough time since Maggie's reign has elapsed to examine and debate her legacy, as the effects are now known. I'll start be stating my position: that she was indeed a 'good thing', not a 'bad thing' for this country; but that I wouldn't say the 'greatest' PM because you're not comparing like with like - Attlee had arguably greater challenges to face.

Rather than compare with Attlee I'll stick to Thatcher. One is enough!

I'm willing to bet the people who plastered those stickers aren't old enough to remember the early 1980s. I am (just). But I'm not old enough to remember the Britain she inherited: the 3-day week, power cuts, union militancy, high inflation, and all the panoply of socialism that led Britain to be known, across the world, as the 'sick man' of Europe. History repeats itself; in 1979 the Labour government of the day had left the country nearly bankrupt, had borrowed too much, had overspent and overtaxed and the UK had to go 'cap in hand ' to the IMF for a bailout. (For IMF read USA. Again.) Guess what - the next Labour government ended the same way - overspend, debt and economic disaster. When we people learn the lessons of history?

So Maggie put a lot of that right. Squeezing the money supply to control inflation, 'good housekeeping', demanding secret ballots for unions before strikes, closing down industries producing things that no-one wanted to pay for. Socialism, in essence, means people thinking they can make decisions for you, because they know better than you. Thatcher started to reverse that. People were given the chance to buy their council houses, own shares in the companies that were supposed to be serving them and 'got her money back' from an EEC that Britain was unfairly funding.

I don't think any person who takes an honest look at the economic data confronting the UK in 1979 can claim anything other than - at the very least - Mr Thatcher made some necessary changes for the good of the country. I would go further and say that they were vital, and have been vindicated. Across the developed world the Thatcher style of privatisation and share ownership was adopted, mostly very successfully, and in the UK inflation was curbed and economic competitiveness restored. The 'sick man' tag was finally shaken off. Labour's absurd 98% tax on the highest earners, which actually reduced the total tax take, was lowered. Not many people seem to be aware of this, but under Thatcher and her tax cuts total tax revenue actually increased.

Economically-literate honest people can't deny these things. They're facts. I think the problem many had (and still have) with Thatcher are the costs of her reforms. Some of these charges are fair, some unfair.

The fair ones first/ There's no doubt that under 'Thatcherism' crime went up, the gap between richest and poorest widened and as state-owned industries and 'old industries' (like mining) were closed down economic and social problems in many communities became widespread. When 'monetarism' was first applied in the early 1980s it was at least one of the factors causing unemployment to rise to 3 million (though it came down afterwards). I think these charges against Thatcher are fair, and are heavy 'minus' points against her. A counter-argument though is the long-term structural changes that UK industry was able to make because of these reforms: less reliance on manufacturing when the output couldn't compete with cheaper foreign good (or coal) and more reliance on finance and services (and a few British 'winners' like pharmaceuticals). This restructure had to come in one way or another or there would have been no jobs left in Britain at all, apart from the public sector.

The less fair ones relate to the myth of 'Tory cuts'. Even today you hear people repeating this myth. Some of it's true, but most of it isn't. Under Thatcher NHS spending increased. Transport was squeezed and the effects lasted a long time, it's true. As someone who uses public transport I can remember it deterioriating. British Rail was a nightmare and needed reform, but rail privatisation wasn't the answer and it didn't work. But introducing competition into telecoms and other utilities spread digital technology to the masses and the competition held companies to account.

Ultimately it is the long-term changes, the profound economic shifts and the repositioning of the 'centre ground' of politics that we can use to ultimately judge a legacy. When asked what her greatest achievement was, Lady Thatcher (as she now is) replied "New Labour". And there you have it.

The Rules of Work - no good deed ever goes unpunished

2010-10-06T23:08:00.001+01:00

It's tempting at work to want to go the extra mile, do something beyond your remit or use your initiative to make something better. These are good traits, and will give you good marks in your appraisal. But be warned, it depends on how you go about it.

If you decide to go the extra mile to improve something, it could backfire on you, even if you've been successful. First, by exceeding your remit you will present a bigger target for people to aim at. And believe me, some will resent your actions (and success). So you may attract more criticism. Second, if you get a reputation as a willing volunteer or someone who's always prepared to dive in and 'make things happen' then people may see you as a 'soft touch', and someone who can be lumbered with all sorts of tasks because you're always first to stick your head above the parapet.

So people who are lazy, want to shirk or whose working life consists of delegating as much as they can may think they can use you as their mule; someone to do all the dirty work. How do you stop this?

The answer is not to stop showing initiative or tone down your strong work ethic but to draw lines in the sand early. Make it crystal clear that you're just helping out and it's not in your job description. Head off criticism at the pass by making it clear to whom feedback should go, that you are limited in what extra work you can take on and that you have to focus on your main job.

The most important thing is to spell out the scope of what you are doing. Make it crystal clear from the start. No-one can criticise you for it because you've volunteered to do this extra work! If they're not happy with your scope, well then are they prepared to do it themselves? Thought not. Say that you are doing this work because you believe in it or it serves a purpose, but that is all you will do.

Labour have made a bad joke worse

2010-09-28T23:17:00.000+01:00

I've been watching Ed Milliband with increasing incredulity.

He and his brother look like the saddest two boys at the 6th form disco. And they look like they're still not old enough to have left it. Certainly Ed's arguments are straight from the school debating society's handbook.

Saying that he represents a 'new generation' is beyond a joke. Doesn't he understand that being younger in years - or less mature, one might say - doesn't qualify anyone as representing a generational shift? If anything Ed Milliband is going back to the past; his links with the trade unions, who handed him the leadership, will come to embarrass him more and more as industrial conflict looms. In his acceptance speech he slapped them down; well he had to really, because he knows the public won't support 70s-style strikes.

Unlike some people, I'm not so bothered about his knifing of his brother. He's a politician, what does anyone expect? But his cynical revelation that he belives that the Iraq war was a 'mistake' is pretty grubby. If that's what he thought why hasn't he been saying that for years? Like most of Labour, he followed Blair because he trusted him; then waited to see how the war worked out and what the public mood was; then seeing that things weren't going well he came out and positioned himself loudly as an anti-Iraq champion. At least D. Milliband stuck to what he believed, right or wrong.

On the only issue of the moment, the deficit and the cuts, he's not so sure. What does he stand for? What does Labour stand for? New Labour is dead, Caesar Blair has been stabbed and his heir Brown exiled and locked away out of sight like a mad old aunt that they're all embarrassed about. Ed doesn't have any policy detail on spending cuts because he and Labour don't stand for anything any more. Kind of like John Major, or his Tory successors. Diane Abbott would have been a suicidal choice of leader, but at least everyone knows where you stand with her.

The only thing Ed seems to focussed on is going after the highly paid. The Laffer curve, which says that raising taxes reduces the tax rate, and a theory that has such wide support amongst both right and left, has been ignored. (To be fair, the Coalition has done much the same.) All the talk is about 'fairness' now, which is understandable. So rich folk are an easy target for Ed. The other thing Ed has said is try to stamp his adolescent mark on politics by rubbishing the way New Labour did....everything. From the Post Office to Iraq, from their economic policy to banking, from tax policy to education policy, from anti-terror legislation to the 'nanny state', Ed carried out a bonfire of New Labour. But defining yourself by what you don't believe isn't enough.

Time will tell. Ed has shifted to the left without defining what it is he believes in. Blair (and Cameron) knew that to be in Government you have to capture, and hold, the middle ground. Labour is unlikely to, and has a leader that will now be reduced to sniping and carping on the sidelines. The Lib Dem involvement in government condemns Labour to a lonely existence on the left. That was Cameron's masterstroke. He 'decontaminated' the Tory brand with a dose of vitamin Clegg, and Labour are left like a soggy old pudding, so bereft of talent and ideas that they will probably spend a decade in opposition. Even if the Coalition screws it all up - and they might - Labour will take a long time to decontaminate themselves in people's memories from the deficit they left us with.

Labour Party leadership candidates

2010-09-16T22:43:00.001+01:00

The battle for the Labour leadership is reaching its zenith. The paucity of talent on show makes Britain's Got Talent look like a procession of Nobel Laureates. It seems that David 'bananaman' Milliband will win it. As Foreign Secretary he was an absolute joke, like Pike from Dad's Army. "The world is a scary place" was the best thing he had to say about international relations. Personally I hope that Diane Abbott triumphs. She is so nutty she made Michael Portillo look positively sane on This Week. I particularly remember when she rubbished the whole concept of private education....before she promptly packed off her own child to one. Nice. She's not averse to playing the race card when it suits her either. Well, let's hope she wins the leadership, unlikely though that is. That should kill off Labour for good.

World Cup Final - good for Africa and Spain, bad for football

2010-07-13T00:01:00.001+01:00

Thank God Spain triumphed over Holland on Sunday night. I was out of my sofa cheering when Iniesta rammed the ball home. Spain, although not the most exciting team, were technically the most gifted in the tournament, and were worthy winners. It would have been an absolute travesty if Holland, having kicked and basically assaulted the Spanish players in lieu of competing on technique, had clung on for penalties and then sneaked a win.

The Dutch team were a disgrace. They made a mockery of the game and should be forever disgraced by their performance. Future generations will surely remember this final as the 'karate-kick' final, just as the 2006 final in Germany is remembered as the 'head-butt' final. De Jong should not just have been sent off but arguably arrested for what was basically an assault, with no attempt whatsover made to play the ball. That thug Van Bommel was little better. Countless millions around the world would have watched that and wondered why on earth everyone makes such a fuss about football.

So why weren't De Jong, Van Bommel and others not sent off? It's partly down to the cowardice and incompetence of the English referee. Don't tell me he didn't see that karate kick. He was a few feet away, for goodness' sake. He saw it, absolutely. He just didn't apply the laws of the game. Yet another disastrous night for English football. He completely bottled it. Even our refs can't get it right.

But here's the thing: if that match had been a Group match between 2 'minor' teams - say Nigeria and Switzerland - you can bet your bottom dollar that the ref would have been showing red cards left, right and centre. But because this was the World Cup Final, and Sepp Blatter and his cronies had so much riding on it - endorsements, advertising, publicity etc - the ref succumbed to political pressure and waited until the very end to do what the laws of the game demand he do and punish transgressions correctly. He was under pressure not to make the Final too one-sided by sending off 2 Dutch players in the first half, thereby making it too easy for Spain against 9 men and ruining the competitive spectacle. The irony is, by failing to do what he should have done (his job) he very nearly let the Dutch win it and the world was within a whisker of witnessing the utter farce of a Dutch team that had no interest in actually playing football beating a Spanish team that exuded artistry and skill.

If ever there was a game that summed up and symbolised the corruption and the utter debasement that FIFA has brought to world football, this was it. The arrogance and stupidity of Sepp Blatter and FIFA knows no bounds. They refused to countenance the use of video technology to reduce referee error, until forced into a u-turn by the Frank Lampard 'goal' in the England-Germany game. They basically influenced a weak referee in the Final into bending the laws of the game to suit the TV audience and they prefer spectacle over honesty. Take the farcical new ball which almost no player can hit the target from in free-kicks, not even masters like Xavi. FIFA just insisted on it because there was money in the sponsorship deal.

At least South Africa have put on a good show and confounded the sceptics and the tournament produced worthy winners, even if the standard of football was for the most part lamentable. The best parts of this occasion were:

1. Seeing England forced to confront the reality of their technical deficiencies instead of blaming lack of effort, a long season, the manager, the press, the tactics etc.

2. Seeing Germany and Spain showing the world that in football possession is king.

3. Seeing arrogant Brazil get booted out and exposed as being violent and petulant in defeat (much easier to smile and dance the samba when you win, isn't it boys?).

4. Seeing Spain triumph over Dutch thuggery and FIFA scheming.

5. Seeing Nelson Mandela.

6. Giving South Africans who live in poverty have just a little bit more to cheer about.

7. Seeing England fans behave, for once.

8. Seeing 'smaller' footballing nations like Slovakia and Algeria demonstrate that they are not so 'small' any more and that football is becoming a level playing field.

9. Listening to everything Diego Maradona has had to say

10. Watching that octopus get every game right.

Good teachers better than new buildings

2010-07-09T12:18:00.000+01:00

The Government has scrapped schools' BSF scheme, the Building Schools for the Future programme to upgrade school buildings. It's a shame as I'm sure a good school environment aids increasing standards. But is it that simple?

A letter in Wednesday's London Evening Standard form David Perks, the head of physics at Graveney School in Tooting, claims that it might be a 'blessing in disguise'. He says that 'BSF was a massive social engineering project designed to banish whole-class teaching and reinforce a child-centred approach to learning, this time rebranded as personalised learning.' Interesting point of view.

Looking back to my school days, I remember we had to share text books "one between two"; but our sports facilities were excellent (we had our own indoor swimming pool and large playing fields). In an ideal world all British schools would have excellent, modern, state-of-the-art facilities and building infrastructure and we'd all cheer. But it would appear that this is not the crucial factor in determining academic standards.

According to the 2007 report by the OECD, at a time of high spending on education by the last Labour government, the UK actually slipped down the international league tables in reading, maths and science. Finland and South Korea were the top nations.

The UK spends 5.5% of GDP on education - above average for schools (although below average for universities). So spending is clearly not the whole picture. It is noticeable that in many British state schools teachers do not have to have a university degree in the subjects they are supposed to teach. Teaching is not seen, in this country, as an elite profession. In Japan teaching science requires a masters degree and is highly lauded. It looks as though as a society we have a lot of work to do in shifting cultural beliefs and social mores around learning. It is also interesting that 2nd generation children from certain immigrant groups in the UK outperform their white, British co-students. Children of Indian, Chinese, Irish and east European ancestry achieve above-average results (children from Bangladeshi and West Indian backgrounds achieve below-average results).

I don't know enough about modern teaching methods to comment on David Perks' claims in the Standard. However I do know that parents' attitudes, the standards of teachers, the rigour of teaching methods, discipline in the classroom and damned hard work from students will probably make more of a difference than gleaming new buildings, a desirable though they undoubtedly are.

How to spot a good martial arts club - and how to avoid a bad one.

2010-07-08T20:47:00.001+01:00

"A little learning is a dangerous thing....".

So said Alexander Pope. My dad would often say this to us when we were kids, whenever we got a bit too cocky or big for our boots just because we thought we knew a little something.

This could also be applied to martial arts, which is one of my interests.....

Going to work on one of London's famous red buses recently I bumped into a guy from work I recognised. He worked in (inevitably) the IT department. I don't know him so well, but by the end of the conversation I knew one thing about him pretty well.

After exchanging pleasantries the conversation turned to how we filled our spare time. He told me that he practiced aikido - not just practiced it but was a black belt in it. This achievement clearly filled him with pride, I could sense his ego puffing up.

It so happens that I practice jiu-jitsu - a similar, related art. Some people maintain that jiu-jitsu is the original Japanese martial art and that all others (including aikido) come from them. There is some truth in this, but it's not entirely true- although it IS true that judo, the purely sporting version of jiu-jitsu, did indeed come from jiu-jitsu; judo's founder, Kano, deliberately removed those parts of jiu-jitsu he considered to be dangerous. Seems to defeat one of the main purposes of martial arts to me!

I have 'only' a purple belt in jiu-jitsu, and I didn’t mention it in that conversation. I limited myself to telling him that it was great that he was a black belt. Then he said something very revealing. He said: "It's good because I know no-one can hurt me now".

I knew instantly that this man was not a master. I think it is debatable whether he could even be considered to be a 'martial artist' in the true sense of the word, or at least in the way that I believe it should be interpreted. A true master - or at least a person with a deep understanding of martial arts - would never have uttered something so crass, arrogant and ignorant.

They say in jiu-jitsu that only when you have reached black belt are you ready to be a student. As someone who is a relative beginner you might imagine how this made me feel! You give all that sweat and effort to be a black belt and then you're ready to learn? Give me a break! But it's true.

In the early days of martial arts there were no 'belts' in the sense of gradings or levels. Students just wore the same (white) belts and the more experienced the student the more worn and dirty the belt became; until it appeared almost black. Hence the phrase 'black belt'.

Back to the IT-Bruce-Lee-wannabe. In his arrogance he had vastly overestimated not just aikido, not just himself, but any martial art. A true martial artists knows that anyone can defeat him, given the right set of circumstances (a surprise attack, a concealed weapon, a slip, trip, stumble or mistake by the martial artist). He knows that even a 12 year-old can kill him if - even by sheer fluke - he manages to stick even the tiniest blade or edged weapon into his body. He knows that fights - all fights - are inherently unpredictable, follow no script and end in pain and disaster. He knows that cowards come in groups, and that on the street there is no bowing from the waist, no referee, no scoring system, no judges and absolutely no rules. So by saying that 'I know that no-one can hurt me now' he revealed himself not only to be naive, but to have absolutely no understanding of what martial arts are all about.

Martial arts are about discipline, self-restraint, and courage. Courage in the sense that a true master has mastery over his ego. He will not be provoked or fight over a misguided and illusory sense of 'honour', 'face' or 'pride'. He is already secure in himself. He has confidence in his abilities so knows that fighting is only the very last resort. And even if you do fight you fight to escape; never to 'win'. A martial artist knows that no matter what the colour of his belt that he wears in his nice safe dojo (training hall) it counts for nought in the chaos of a real confrontation. Anyone and everyone can hurt him, so there is no arrogance in him. In terms of fighting art, he knows that the more he knows, the more he knows that he doesn't know.

In my short time in the martial arts I have come across what I consider to be true experts; not just through their mastery of technique but through their humility. These teachers are even prepared to learn from their students. A bad martial arts teacher has a big ego and likes to throw his weight around (sometimes literally) on the mats, do show everyone how 'hard' he is. Or they will affect an air of indifference and contemptuous dismissal to less skilled practitioners. And they will make ludicrous and downright dangerous claims like 'now no-one can hurt me'.

So if you are considering joining a martial arts club here are a few pointers.

1. Beware of arts whose teachers or publicity appeal to thuggery - claims to be able to beat people, kill people, walk down the street and have no fear etc.

2. Beware of instructors who put too great a stall by these belts. If anyone tells you "you can get your black belt in X years", stay away. A good instructor will never sell his club this way; in fact they will try to avoid talking about the overrated belt system, especially the famed black belt. (Don't get me wrong , the belt system has a useful purpose in encouraging endeavour and setting goals - just don't allow it to take over your ego).

3. See if the club is affiliated to national organisations - if they're not, ask yourself why not. The most likely explanation is that their teaching is not approved of, or that they have had a falling out with the organisation's hierarchy. This is amazingly common in martial arts. There are too many big ego around martial arts, which is a shame.

4. Beware of 'special offers'. If an instructor tells you that you can have a discount by paying for blocks of lessons upfront before you've even sampled the class, what does that tell you? That he wants your money regardless of whether it's suitable for you. Never join a club that demands payment for many lessons up front, before you even know if it's right for you.

5. A good instructor will have no problem with you changing your mind or walking away. True, they have to make money, but martial arts are about the spirit and philosophy, not about a get-rich-from-naive-suckers-scheme.

6. A good club will allow you to observe a lesson quietly from the sidelines. This, I believe, is the most important rule of all. If they don't, ask yourself what they've got to hide.

7. Avoid clubs where the students (or worse, the instructor) are clearly arrogant, swaggering thugs. You'll be surprised how many are.

8. Avoid instructors who like to bully or hector their students. A good instructor will keep discipline and demand respect from theri students for them, their art and their fellow students. This is right and proper. But sadly some instructors use discipline as a cover for throwing their weight around and fuelling their egos by yelling at and humiliating students for even the most minor infraction. Instructors like this have watched too many martial arts movies.

9. Talk to the students before you join (not during the class itself). Judge their character, their attitude, their reasons for joining, and above all do they actually enjoy it.

10. Ask yourself if you will have fun there! If you don't enjoy it, it will never last.

There is another aspect to martial arts, frequently ignored: the legal aspect. I've heard instructors say "better to be judged by twelve than carried by six". In other words better to stand trial if you've killed someone in self-defence than to be in a coffin because you didn't fight back. But a better narrative (one that no instructor I've ever come across has explained) is the following: fighting is a bad idea for two reasons.

One: if you lose, you could end up scarred, crippled, disabled or dead. At the very least you will bear some physical injury, and probably some psychological ones too.

Two: if you win, you could end up in court.

Number one is pretty devastating, but number two is one that bothers me. We all know that the judicial system in this country - the police, Crown Prosecution Service, court system, criminal law, civil law, judiciary and preponderance of human rights legislation - is hopelessly and manically biased against the victim and in favour of the criminal. To deny this is to abdicate reason and fly in the face of reality. If you're still wondering, ask yourself this: if you saw a group of teenagers pelting someone's car with stones, would you dare intervene? Even you thought you could handle them? No, I didn't think so. It's not so much the kids you'd be scared of, it's the heavy hand of the law too. Law-abiding citizens have now two enemies in our own communities, even our own homes: the criminals, and the system. No government seems to have the guts to take on the human rights lobby. To me, martial arts is about responsibility, restraint and reason. Therefore in those terrible occasions when force has to be applied, martial arts is helpful. Just beware the barrister who in the inevitable court case that follows will attempt to label you a thug just for studying it!

Back to the point: fighting is 'a bad thing' and should be done only when absolutely necessary. A good club, martial art and instructor will hammer this point home. My jitsu instructors frequently emphasise that your first port of call should be to attempt to talk your way out of a situation; if that fails your objective is to escape, in pursuance of which force may legitimately be applied, in proportion to the threat. This philosophy is a sign of a good club with a healthy philosophy.

As another aside, many people, even police officers, fail to understand some legal points. Here are a few:

1. The difference between 'assault' and 'battery'. If someone threatens you, aggressively blocks your path, makes verbal threats against you, abuses or swears at you, or does anything aggressive that doesn't actually involve physcial contact then they have committed common assault against you. That is a crime, and you have become a victim of crime. Did you know that? If they actually strike you than that is battery. The levels go up: ABG (actual bodily harm), GBH (grievous bodily harm) etc.

2. A pre-emptive strike is permissible in law. If you honestly believe that you are about to be assaulted you are allowed to strike first. Even some cops don't understand this, but it is enshrined in law. The problem comes when you have to convince a jury or magistrates....

So which martial art is the 'best'? I don't pretend to know enough about all of them to answer! If I was an expert with many years' experience in half a dozen of them I may be able to hazard a guess. The reality is that all martial arts can be devastatingly effective if employed by a skilled practitioner. The UFC tournaments will not provide you with the answer because they are constrained by rules and have a scoring system. The fights are artificial. From my own biased viewpoint, based on my limited knowledge, I say that jiu-jitsu is the 'best' because it is not a sport, has no rules, forbids no strikes (no matter how dangerous) and involves training for combat in all ranges : weapons (longest range), kicking (long range), hands and elbows (medium range), grappling and throwing (close range), and groundwork (on the floor). Obviously there are many variations of jiu-jitsu which I won’t go into.

That conclusion just my opinion, I have only tried a few martial arts for a short while and am happy for anyone to disagree with me and argue to the contrary. But the reality is: no-one really knows which martial art is the ‘best’ because a real fight has too many variables to be able to predict which style or art is most effective.

Anyway, that is all beside the point. The point is: do start martial arts. One day it may very well save your life or the life of a loved one. It will boost your confidence, your fitness and our self-esteem. And it will teach you (with luck) other virtues, like self-restraint. And if you do well I hope you will never end up like Mr Aikido-IT programmer on the bus and claim that 'no-one can hurt me now'. Because that's how you will get hurt.

Review: BBC2's "How to Beat Tough Times - Money Watch"

2010-07-07T16:12:00.001+01:00

Watched the first episode of a new BBC2 series on personal finance this evening. It had a very lightweight feel, despite an appearance from Mr Omnipresent - Martin Lewis. Perhaps that was due in part to the permanently smiling Sophie Raworth, who co-presented the programme; or maybe it was the succession of 'experts' trotting out the blindingly obvious to people who seemed to have missed the Credit Crunch completely.

Martin Lewis owns and runs moneysavingexpert, a very fine money saving website, and competitor to a website I've written for - moneymagpie.com. I remember Lewis being roasted alive by Jon Snow on Channel 4 News, who took him to task for recommending to his (million-plus) subscribers that they put their money into Icelandic banks! For some reason Lewis struggled on that occasion; all he had to say was that his financial advice always comes with caveats - that nothing is guaranteed and you can lose all your money. Personally I thought that anyone who put their money into schemes offering too-good-to-be-true interest rates was a mug. Which is why I never did it ;)

Back to the BBC2 show. They started with some kid-economics, explaining why purchasing power will decrease during the recovery when it seemed to increase during the great recession. They explained it by examining interest rate variations (historically low interest rates that were used to save people from their own mortgages have nowhere to go but up). Personally I think it would have sufficed to say that there is a time-lag between economic decisions being made and their effects trickling down to the masses.

An expert (actually several) were pulled on. An interesting book I am reading, "The Black Swan" by Naseem Nicolas Taleb explains why, on matters of economic and (especially) geo-political forecasting, 'experts' are no better at predicting outcomes than the Man In The Street. Briefly, they cannot tell the future, and the past is not a good predictor of the future - other than to predict that the future is unpredictable. Take every war and every international crisis as an example. There are too many variables to be accurate about inflation rates even next year, never mind in 5 years' time.

Still, BBC2's 'expert 'played it safe. He predicted a 30% fall in house prices over the next few years. "Over the next few years" can mean absolutely any time frame; and predicting a house price correction requires no special, esoteric knowledge at all. He advised a young renter that buying a house was therefore ‘risky’. Nonsense. If you're in it for a quick buck, then yes, it's risky. Otherwise bricks and mortar is an excellent investment. I mean 'investment' in the sense of something long-term to give your family a place to live, not in the sense of it outperforming the FTSE and making you a pile of cash. Even if you're stuck in negative equity, you should just stay put. The UK is a small, overcrowded island and eventually the prices will slowly rise again. Houses are for living in, not for making people rich. You only 'invest' if you already have a place and therefore have less to lose. Why can't people understand this basic fact?

The main thrust of the programme seemed to be that starting a small business was a way of beating rising unemployment, especially given the new tax breaks for small startups (outside London). The programme sensibly included the caveat that about half of small businesses fail within the first year, so that demonstrated good balance. Another alternative it seemed to suggest (through strong focus on happy-looking examples of such people) was that part-time working was a way to keep your job - or that at the very least it was better than being on the dole. Nothing ground-breaking in that though.

Martin Lewis then talked to a family of spendthrifts who were clueless about how much money they were spending and advised them to cut down. Apparently a £2.50 cappuccino a day equates to £625 per year, which would buy you a 'nicer holiday', Martin said. I could see the mindset of this family - they seemed to think that several holidays per year were their birthright, on top of their cappuccinos. Spending less was something alien to them.

Lewis then gave them a list of ways they might be able to earn extra money. It all involved some sort of extra work, which evidently this family had never thought of. His suggestions included: selling spare junk around the house on Amazon or e-Bay; letting out their drive or even their car; getting a cashback creditcard and paying off the balance in full each month (fat chance with that family, I have to say); carry out an ironing service (the wife turned her nose up at that one); carrying out online surveys at home for a few cents at a time; and allowing your house to be used as a film location. The wife's eyes became like saucers at this one. I just kept thinking: this family is so stupid they actually deserve to sink.

Lewis could also have mentioned the following: rent a spare room out to a lodger and keep the first £4k tax-free; do some overtime; or take a 2nd job as a silver service waiter or something similar at weekends. In other words: have a little less leisure time, ditch the wide-screen tv and WORK MORE.

So all in all "How To Beat Tough Times" told us very little, sensationalised wherever possible and stated the blindingly obvious throughout. I was expecting to hear something challenging or learn something new, but I didn't. Even the 'experts' predictions had no more basis in fact than anything you, the reader, might predict. It had the air of trying to fill the air time with doom-laden stories just to create a response to something which has in fact been analysed a thousand times already, in greater depth and with more incisive commentary: the Credit Crunch and the recession which followed it. Maybe if Robert Peston or Hugh Pym had fronted it this programme may have had something vaguely useful to say. As it was it felt like watching a daytime TV chat show.

World Cup karma

2010-07-06T22:26:00.001+01:00

I've just watched Holland knock out Uruguay in the World Cup semi-finals. That's a result that will please the Dutch - but I also suspect it will please Ghana supporters too.

In the quarter finals one of the Uruguay players deliberately and purposefully used his arm to deny Ghana a goal. Ghana were thus denied what would have been not just a goal, but in all likelihood the winning goal. In the event the cheating player was sent off and Ghana were awarded a penalty - which they promptly missed. Eventually Uruguay ran out winners in a penalty shootout.

It's one thing to cheat; quite another to revel in it, without any hint of remorse, let alone shame. After the match the Uruguayan player, rather than issue a mea culpa of any sort, positively delighted in his deception. "The hand of God belongs to me now," he crowed, in reference to Diego Maradona's infamous incident of cheating to claim a goal against England in the 1986 World Cup in Mexico.

It is indicative of how low sport in general, and football in particular, has sunk that cheating is now a cause for celebration when perpetrated in the name of 'your country'. As I have argued before, associating teams with nations is an error, a form of anthropomorphism. And yes, my insult to footballers was intentional.

The inversion of any type of moral code, any definition of honourable behaviour, is now complete. Cheating is lauded as virtue, cynicism as heroic; as long as they are perpetrated in the context of national sporting competition. Would the cheating Uruguayan have been so bold if he had perpetrated his act for a mere club, allegiance to which players drop rather quickly when mammon is dangled in front of them?

Cheats do sometimes win. But here's the catch: it comes back to haunt them in the end. Sometimes more quickly than they think. So Uruguay were eliminated in the very next game, and we will remember them for that dishonest incident; longer, I suspect than we will remember them for Forlan's goals. Maradona was a great player but not a great human being. His team was just recently humiliated 4-0 by the Germans.

And England? All their swagger and arrogance, from their showboating lifestyles to Steven Gerrard saying to an interviewer that Algeria fixture England was "their world cup final", has been aptly rewarded. It is ironic that ever since 1966 , when they were not a little fortuitous, that year has become a millstone around their collective necks, an albatross that has hampered them ever since.

What goes around comes around.

Oil and BP (Buck Passing)

2010-06-21T20:43:00.000+01:00

Obama set a lot of stall by boasting how much better he would have handled the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina than George W Bush. So now that the Gulf Coast of Mexico is drowning in black stuff he realises that he might soon be drowning in the brown stuff. But who is to blame? Really?

A lot of British commentators (like on Question Time last Thursday) are complaining that the criticism of BP is anti-British. But I'm not sure that it is; and in any case, BP does have a pretty hefty British component. Oh yes it does.

First of all remember how the (mostly American) bosses of the banks were grilled and generally excoriated by Congressmen when the financial disaster struck? That rather puts the BP Chairman's grilling into context. Secondly, BP has its origins firmly in the UK. Consider this scenario -suppose an American oil company that has 40% British shareholders and had hired UK contractors spilt millions of barrels of oil all along the south of England and made Bognor Regis even more ugly than it is now. How do you think people in the UK would have reacted. I think we know. As if there isn't enough America-bashing here already.

Yes I know - Halliburton and Transocean aren't British. And American policies have led to oil disasters around the world. But forget the drowning pelicans; 11 human beings lost their lives in this disaster, and people's livelihoods have been ruined. So anger is justified, and pointing out the inconsistencies in US policy (and I'm sure there are some) shouldn't stop BP from taking responsibility.

But if we dig a little deeper (dig, not drill) a sad fact becomes inescapable: greed. This disaster is inescapably the result of the West's - and of America's - greed for oil. Currently being joined by Asia's thirst for the black stuff too. And I don't mean guinness. It's harsh to say that American's driving SUV's are to blame for the Gulf Oil spill; but sadly, they most certainly are.

Landlords and Self-employed: How to keep your tax down

2010-06-21T20:30:00.000+01:00

So it looks like George Osborne will be hammering just about everyone wiht tax rises - not just the CGT (capital gains tax) payers. If you are a landlord (like me) or self-employed (like I might be), follow my guide to minimise your taxes.

1. Offset everything you conceiveably can against your property. Not just the obvious things like interest on the mortgage (you can't offset the capital repayments), but also the less obvious things like the utilities (if you provide them to your tenants), buildings and contents insurance and repairs (excluding improvements). Also anything you have spent on advertising. And remember, when you come to sell your property, you can reduce your capital gains tax by offsetting any building work against it.

2. If you are self-employed and work from home, remember that a lot of work-related items can be offset against your tax. This includes phone, internet, utility bills, the cost of your workstation desk (if you have one) and even repairs and decoration to the room you work in.

3. If you rent a room to a tenant, and you also live in the property, you are allowed to take £4,250 or rent tax-free. It's the Government's Rent-A-Room scheme.

4. What if you are a tenant and you work from home? Well you can also offset some of your rent and council tax. Not bad.

Abolish International Sport

2010-06-17T11:24:00.000+01:00

Now that we are in the middle of the 2010 football World Cup it seems like a good time to revisit an article I wrote last year about the nonsense of having 'international' sports teams. Already we've seen evidence of politicking - Didier Drogba being allowed to play against the rules with his arm in plaster, presumably to keep fans and sponsors happy. Platini and Blatter patronising Africans with talk about 'sounds of Africa' and entire nations - even continents - pretending that these pampered pooches, cheats and cynics somehow represent them. Read on...

It's a funny thing about sport, but when teams suddenly become countries: "Germany", "France", etc - the contest suddenly becomes less about sport and more about national pride. When England beat Australia to win the Ashes the entire country basked in the glory. Even though the baskers themselves couldn't throw a ball for toffee and have contributed exactly nothing to "their" team's success.

So here's my proposal. All 'international' sporting events should be abolished. Not sporting events themselves; just that athletes should compete as individuals at the Olympics and at every other sport, and that the England football, rugby etc teams be abolished and players play for any team they want to - clubs, associations etc.

The reasoning being firstly : that international sport divides rather than unites; that it promotes nationalism, even racism, cements differences and encourages jingoism and xenophobia. It is, as Orwell said, "war minus the shooting". Hardly what the world needs. Secondly: that in a sporting context 'nationality' is actually pretty meaningless. Andy Murray was born in Scotland but trained and learnt his skills in Spain. So he actually owes more to Spain than Scotland. So shouldn't he really represent Spain, if anyone? After all we have no control over where we were born. It just depends on where your mother went into labour. I could have been born in France if my mum had delivered early. So can I play for France? My mother was born in Tanzania, so I can play for them too, even though I've never set foot there? It's meaningless. Most people have 'foreign' blood in them.

International sport equates sporting prowess with nationhood, even ethnicity. And if American athletes win say 10 golds, how does that mean 'America' has won 10 golds? It doesn't. It just means that those individuals have won them. Nothing at all to do with insurance salesmen in Texas or computer programmers in San Francisco. They haven't done anything. This false sense of 'belonging', of somehow partaking in the success of others, living your dreams and fantasies vicariously through the success of others who just happen to share your passport is simply nonsense. Do you know an olympic gold medallist? Have you ever met one? Have you personally helped him/her to perfect the techniques that enabled them to win gold? Of course not. So you can claim no credit for their success. The feelgood factor you get from their success in competing for the team of the country you live in is illusory.

Professor Noam Chomsky of MIT, renowned linguist, author and campaigner said this about sporting loyalties during a live interview in front of an audience:

"You know, I remember in high school, already I was pretty old. I suddenly asked myself at one point, why do I care if my high school team wins the football game? [laughter] I mean, I don't know anybody on the team, you know? [audience roars] I mean, they have nothing to do with me, I mean, why I am cheering for my team? It doesn't mean any -- it doesn't make sense. But the point is, it does make sense: it's a way of building up irrational attitudes of submission to authority, and group cohesion behind leadership elements -- in fact, it's training in irrational jingoism. That's also a feature of competitive sports. I think if you look closely at these things, I think, typically, they do have functions, and that's why energy is devoted to supporting them and creating a basis for them and advertisers are willing to pay for them and so on."

Professor Chomsky's slant is that obsessing about sport distracts the masses from the important things in life, like politics. But extrapolate his point further to people's association of entire countries or races with sporting contests . It's not a big stretch.

Take English football. Many people like watching football. They like to see the skill of the players and the teams. But a curious thing: they think that a team is equivalent to themselves. They think that they are a team. So they say: "We won on Saturday"; "we beat you"; "we're better than you" etc. It makes me laugh. "We"? "We"? Since when do you play for Chelsea? Are you a goalkeeper or something? It used to be the case that teams were composed of players who were all local lads from the area. Those days are long gone - now football is in the hands of huge and powerful corporate giants, media companies and billionaires. I'm looking forward to laughing my socks off when the day comes that rival teams are owned by companies that are in partnership with each other, or even the same company. Just to see the bafflement of the 'fans' who believe that 'their' team is apart from, and distinct from, all the others.

On a local level sporting loyalties are laughable. Irrational. An imagined and entirely concocted 'rivalry' that sweeps people along into believing that they have 'enemies'. Two guys could pass each other in the street perfectly peaceably. But if the next day they are wearing colours from opposing teams they suddenly become rivals. Amazing.

On an international scale it is even more absurd. If sport is truly about aesthetics, admiring the strength, speed, technique, determination and willpower of the competitors, then grouping teams of individuals by country should be abolished. Individuals should compete as individuals, teams merely as colleagues. In many sports the players in the same teams don't even have the same nationality, they only qualify through ancestry, so it's meaningless anyway. International sport encourages the most ugly kind of jingoism and nationalism, often with a healthy dose of racism thrown in for good measure.

It could be too ambitious an aim. Perhaps the desperate urge to have a sense of belonging, the divisiveness of 'them' and 'us' is too strongly ingrained in human nature to achieve this. But we could make a start by abolishing the contemptible 'league table' of medals that 'countries' win at the Olympics. I don't care that the UK did so well, beating France, Australia etc. It wasn't our country anyway, just a miniscule proportion of people who hold the nationality and outperfomed another tiny number of individuals, none of whom have any affinity whatsoever with the watching viewers.

Even the 'positive' aspects of international competition - camaraderie, national hysteria, strangers kissing each other in the street - is all based on 'beating' someone, on being 'better' than someone and on being, in some way, superior. I'm not against competition, I think it's healthy. I'm against it being based on nationhood. The world would be a much better place without it.

Final Election Debate - Cameron blows it

2010-05-01T11:17:00.001+01:00

The media analysis seems to be that Cameron had a good innings in last night's final debate. But on my blog I have no problem going against the media grain :)

Cameron has lost most in these debates. Although he did press home some good points last night his real enemy - Clegg - came through pretty much unscathed. And it's Clegg that the Tories need to fear most, for he could destroy them.

Why? Because a hung Parliament, or a minority Government that needs the Lib Dems, will probably result in far-reaching electoral reform which could shut the Conservatives out of office forever. The price of any deal withe the Lib Dems will be electoral reform. This naturally disadvantages the Conservatives. Despite the protests to the contrary of Labour and the Lib Dems, this is the most likely outcome of a hung parliament. The Conservatives, if they fail to win an outright majority, will never agree to a system that will deny them a majority. First-past-the-post suits the Tories.

Proportional Representation, or a transferable voting system of any kind will almost certainly result in a Lib-Lab coalition, or some sort of accommodation between Britain's two main left-of-centre parties, forever. Labour is a busted flush, and everyone knows that. They have no chance of winning an outright majority on May 6th. So the battle is between a Conservative majority or Nick Clegg as a kingmaker. The latter option would mean an impossible choice for the Conservatives: govern with the Lib Dems and accept the dismantling of first-past-the-post, or watch Clegg cut a deal with Labour and resign themselves to opposition.

So that's the strategic dilemma that Cameron is faced with. Seen through this prism, the debate looks different.

Brown and Cameron were foolish to even agree to these debates. Debating and public speaking are Brown's weakest points. He was bound to come off worst against his younger, slicker rivals. Mrs Thatcher was wise, and knew it was a risk that wasn't worth taking. Cameron has also miscalculated because Clegg has been given equal footing in front of the viewing public. (Of course the 3 of them debate all the time at Prime Minister's Questions, but only political junkies follow that. More's the pity.)

So Cameron gave Clegg an 'in' to let him steal his Obama-esque mantle of 'change' and present himself as the anti-political politician: the outsider, the alternative. Clegg grabbed his chance to talk about 'the two old parties', 'the old system', etc etc. More informed viewers know it's nonsense because the Lib Dems are part and parcel of the system and have also been caught in the expenses scandal and taking donations from dubious sources.

No matter. Cameron failed last night on two counts: he wavered as he held the stake above Gordon Brown's vampire heart, failing to adminster the coup de grace and finish him off. And he failed to cut down Clegg.

Cameron started off badly. Almost from his opening line. He said that the economy was 'in a rut'. In a rut? When your car doesn't start you're in a rut. When you've accidentally deleted an important text message you might feel you're in a bit of a 'rut'. I can't believe he was so timid. He could have said that Gordon Brown has destroyed the savings, jobs and hopes of millions of us and the economy is facing an apocalyptic meltdown. 'Apocalyptic meltdown' sounds a bit stronger than 'rut', don't you think?

But Cameron seemed scared to say anything like that. I don't like these debates because they are sterile, formulaic and fixed and the questions are rehearsed. No room for audience come-back, no allowance made for the host to ask his own questions. Even a Question Time format would have been better than this. The debates reduce politics to soundbites, even more than it currently is. That's a great shame, and pushes us further towards the infantilisation of political debate. X-Factor politics, in fact. It's bloody awful. But since this is what we've got, soundbites are what we have to examine.

"They've had 13 years," Cameron said with exasperation, several times. It was a strong and effective soundbite, it struck home a simple point and stuck in the memory. But I felt it was too little, too late. He should have said this right through the campaign and certainly from the first debate. Clegg had a stronger theme that with constant repetiton struck a chord with a numbed electorate: "the 2 old parties". There were variations of this last night: "there they go again", "we need a different way", "the same old thing". Never mind that these are vacuous, meaningless statements that advance no argument. These stupid 'debates' (actually they're not debates in any meaningful sense) are all about these soundbites. The sad fact is that lots of people don't follow politics closely enough and they rely on these cliches to decide how to vote.

Brown actually did quite well last night, I thought. But it's way, way too late. He has learnt as the debates have gone on. Lesson number one is that you need a theme and you need to repeat it endlessly - I could have told him that :). So he came out with "it's the same old Tory party". The subject was the inheritance cut for the richest 3,000 in the country. Clegg joined Brown to gang up on Cameron over this.

Cameron made the point that everyone, rich and poor, wants to hand their inheritance to their children. He could have just told the truth about his policy and said that he believes that trying to keep millionaires like Richard Branson in the country is good for the UK because for the price of a bit of inheritance tax they might continue to keep thousands of jobs, investment and industry in the UK instead of shipping out. But he sense that the public mood is not for helping rich people any more, so decided not to defend it and talked instead about the 'desperation' of Brown. Vacuous but effective.

Brief diversion: Personally I think that inheritance cuts are not the reason that Richard Branson stays in the UK; decisions are more complex and are based around the business climate, the skills and flexibility of the workforce and the opportunities for marketing and selling. So this inheritance cut for the rich is daft, and seems unfair.

Cameron failed to kill off Brown because he didn't find a soundbite to negate Brown's taunts about not matching Labour's spending on education, the police etc. An effective riposte would have been : "Gordon Brown has bankrupted us", or "Because of Gordon Brown there's no money left". Just focus on a theme, get a soundbite and repeat. Sad, but true.

The most effective riposte would have been to highlight the failures of Labour's record. It's so easy that it baffles me why Cameron didn't do it. Here's an easy one on education: OFSTED's report last year stated that 1 in 3 state schools in 'inadequate'. So anything Brown says on education could be countered with "Under Labour you child has a 1 in 3 chance of getting an inadequate education. Do they deserve a second chance?"

The thing is, most people quite rightly think that Labour doesn't deserve a second chance. They just aren't sure that Cameron is the best alternative.

Cameron failed utterly to conduct what looked to me like a simple task and tell Britain that Gordon Brown when Chancellor orchestrated the regime of deregulation that led to the banking crisis, allowed the housing bubble to inflate to unsustainable levels, let credit card companies suck people into debt, sold our gold, raided the pensions and therefore (soundbit alert!) doesn't deserve another go. Incredibly, he hardly mentioned any of that in any of the debates. It was the simplest of tasks and he blew it. Not only that, but he failed to destroy the mortal threat to his flank in the shape of Clegg.

On presentation and soundbites, Clegg did so much better than his rivals in all 3 debates. The gloss has begun to rub off him though and he didn't run away with it last night. When Cameron became Tory leader someone said that his greatest enemy was time. In other words as people get used to him they become more cynical and he becomes less 'alternative' and more 'establishment'. So it has been with Clegg, but on a smaller scale.

Cameron tried to nail Clegg on his pro-Euro credentials, pointing out the obvious fact that if were in the Euro like Greece, Portugal, Ireland etc we couldn't let the pound devalue and help ourselves. Clegg countered smartly with a promise of a referendum. Good move: when your opponent swings at you, use his own policies against him! Clegg's offer to have a meeting of some sort after the election, where the shadow chancellors have a chat and decide what to do was cheeky and presumptuous. Cameron and Brown sniffily ignored it, but as a debating device it pulled off a neat trick of making him appear reasonable and above the fray. The 'outsider' card again.

It seemed clear to me that Clegg had done the most homework, so I believe he 'won' last night. However you define 'winning'. All 3 agreed to shake up banking regulation and tax, orin Cameron's more anodyne words 'levy', the banks.

Brown had a 'same old Tories' theme that I mentioned earlier. And he also cleverly went on the offensive against Cameron pointing out that when the crisis hit he took the right decisions in renationalising the banks and putting together a rescue package. He has been praised internationally for this and rightly so. It's his strongest card. The trouble is, as I've said before, when the arsonist turns up with a hosepipe it's hard to feel generous towards him. On substance Brown probably did best last night, arguing that the Tories plan to cut spending earlier would risk 'double dip' recession.

All three selectively quoted the IFS study which shows that none of them have come clean on their tax-and-spending plans and that all of them are hiding the true extent of the pain to come. Mervyn King, Governor of the Bank of England, apparently thinks that because of this the next Government will be so unpopular they will be out of power for a generation. They may well be.

So overall:
Brown wins of substance, but he's dead in the water now.
Clegg wins on media performance and soundbite effectiveness.
Cameron is the big loser because he didn't win a clear victory, and only that will do now, simply because the Lib Dems are a more lethal threat to him than Labour.

Labour deserve to lose. But do the Tories deserve to win?

2010-04-26T23:20:00.000+01:00

When your house is on fire you don’t call the arsonist to come and put it out. So there’s no reason to vote for Gordon Brown, who has done so much to shape Labour party policy since 1997.

New Labour’s time is almost up; it’s time for something new. The world has changed so much in the last 5 years with Obama, banks and recession. I’m looking forward to a political change.

New Labour is the project that failed. We can see that now. In 1997 the Tories were old, tired, drifting and had not delivered on public services. So now the sense of disappointment around the country at New Labour – even amongst Labour supporters – is palpable.

First things first: the recession. Every major economy went into one, but the UK had one of the most severe economic contractions, was one of the first in, the last out, and with the one of the largest national debts. The causes of the worldwide credit crunch were varied, and many. I explore them in other articles. But the weak financial position that the country his equipped with in facing the recession can certainly be laid at the door of the Labour government, and more specifically at the door of one James Brown. (That’s Gordon Brown’s real first name by the way, did you know that? Except he’s not very funky.)

Yes, that’s right, the Scottish comedian himself. As Chancellor he was the most senior Labour figure in charge of the nation’s finances, and the financial mismanagement with which he saddled Britain is his legacy. Labour decided the policy; he implemented it.

In 1997 Labour entered into a Faustian pact with the City to spend money like it was going out of fashion. Year after year I remember seeing Gordon Brown, resplendent in his dinner jacket and white bow tie, deliver his speech to the City of London. Every year, without fail, he would lavish praise on their get-rich-at-all-costs deals, their short-termism and their thrusting dynamism, while he marvelled uncritically and without the slightest trace of irony at how they had surpassed New York in the pantheon of greed and debt. Not a word about bonuses, or (much more importantly) the poisonous culture of short-termism that bonuses were encouraging.

Labour built the British economy on an edifice of lies. It was a lie built on debt, and it was unsustainable. A pyramid scheme of deception. In its essence, simplified to its bare bones, it meant borrowing money from China in order to buy Chinese goods. Madness.

Labour promised that there would be no return to boom and bust, but that’s exactly what we’ve got, and we’ve got it in spades. A fake boom on borrowed money and short-term deals arranged by the City, with a consumer boom underpinned by unsustainable house price increases and a massive increase in personal debt, cheered on by Brown. Their incompetence has been utterly staggering, and unforgivable. For sure, they weren’t alone. The Great British public eagerly lapped up easy credit and the huge debts, to get what they wanted, and get it right now. The Government fed their obsession, like a drug dealer who gives his clients more and more to get them hooked.

So now, whenever Brown or the other Labour cronies try and persuade us that they saved Britain, that their actions led us out of recession or that other parties would put us back into recession etc etc they have a problem. Every mention of words like ‘recession’, ‘recovery’, ‘downturn’, etc all remind people who exactly it was that played such a prominent role on the international stage in creating the conditions for a credit crunch, who doubled the national debt and who got us into this mess. For this reason alone, Labour deserves to lose this election.

What of Labour’s social record?

They made huge noises about it when Blair took over in 97. But their record has been mixed – and that’s being generous. The gap between the rich and the poor, by which they set so much stall, has widened. They have doubled the size of the NHS budget without really reforming the way it spends money. GPs have been paid more to do less work. There have been some bright spots in health – waiting lists have come down on many measures. But the failures of government IT projects and defence procurement projects have been more black holes into which billions have been poured.

To me, it is Labour’s failure on education (‘education, education, education’) which has been the biggest national scandal of all. Upon the quality of education the future of society rests. Labour’s failure on this will have consequences for generations to come. By the government’s own research, literacy and numeracy levels for 11 year olds are so poor as to be disastrous. OFSTED reported in 2009 that 1 in 3 British state schools is ‘inadequate’. It’s an utterly devastating indictment. Selection by ability has been replaced by selection by postcode. Discipline has collapsed and teachers are drowning in bureaucracy. After 13 years, no party should be re-elected on this record.

The list goes on. DNA profiles of those proved innocent, suspension of habeas corpus, powers brought in because of an over-reaction to terrorism, the right to trial by jury, even the rendition of human beings to places of torture have all been brought in by Labour. Labour’s mismanagement of foreign policy needs no introduction, let alone explanation.

History repeats itself. In slightly different ways perhaps, but it does. This Labour government is ending as its Labour predecessors have: with national bankruptcy, financial chaos, high unemployment, and a healthy dose of trade union militancy thrown in just for fun. Someone once said: “A devalued currency is a sign of a devalued government”. Who said that? A certain Gordon Brown, when in opposition.

There really are only two reasons to vote Labour: first, blind loyalty; second, fear of the Conservatives.

So what of the Conservatives? One thing is undeniable: any party that can’t demolish a Government that has a track record like Labour’s clearly has a hole in it somewhere. The public knows some things full well: that if the Tories had won the 2005 election the credit crunch, the banking collapse, the falling pound, the expenses scandal – all these things would have happened just the same.

Here is a home truth about the election: The Institute of Fiscal Studies estimates that most (if not all) government departments require a 25% cut in their budgets. So the choice is really a choice between three administrators rather than leaders; the winners can only become the custodians of national finance rather than radical tax-cutters or tax-and-spenders. Ideologically you can barely fit a cigarette paper between the parties now.

So this is the state of affairs: because of the parlous state of the country’s finances, there is almost no room for the next Government to make any radical ideological changes to the way Britain is governed. The money just isn’t there. All three parties agree that spending must be cut; they just differ on the extent and the timing

The deficit Labour has left the country saddled with is so enormous that there have to be huge cutbacks in spending and probably tax rises too.

The Tories want to cut deeper and quicker; Labour prefer to keep big Government spending going a little longer. It sounds like the age-old choice between Keynes and Hayek – between economic dirigisme and laissez-faire. But it isn’t so. Not any more. They are all cost-cutters now, they just won’t admit it in the election campaign.

Nothing has been more deceitful and patronising to the public than the conspiracy of silence that all three parties have maintained over the elephant in the drawing room: the budget deficit. The cuts that are required to balance the budget are so severe they make the constant pledges to ‘protect’ services look grotesque in their dishonesty. The parties have competed on who would cut the least, and who would spend the most, while the international bond markets know full well that whoever wins the election will have to cut deeper than Thatcher ever did. So they are pretty relaxed about the result.

John Lanchester, writing in The Guardian today, estimates that the gap between the parties’ spending and tax-raising plans is about £30 billion a year. Yet none of the parties has come anywhere near explaining how the nation will fill this hole. The lack of detail, honesty and transparency around this issue is cynical and breathtaking. It is the truth that dare not speak its name, and no party – not even Nick Clegg’s – can bring itself to level with the public. Maybe they think we are all mugs. Maybe we are – I don’t see the audiences in political debates rubbishing parties’ spending plans very often. More often it’s just the opposite: the more spending they promise, the more popular they seem to be. It’s put the Tories on the back foot as they can’t bring themselves to admit that their spending plans have the harshest cuts of all.

All the parties’ pledges on spending are a smokescreen to try and make the public forget about the enormous cuts that will happen sooner or later and that will spare no front-line service in the country. The Civil Service know this full well, and are preparing spending plans accordingly. They know there is no choice.

Cameron has not played his hand very well. He has a problem that is very much the inverse of Margaret Thatcher’s in 1979 - then it was big-spending social democracy and Keynesianism that was discredited; now it is laissez-faire that has been undermined. The clamour now is for nationalisation and taxing the bankers, not free-market enterprise.

Cameron’s mantle of ‘change’ has been swiped by Nick Clegg, who has deceitfully positioned himself as somehow being above politics. Everyone wants change, there’s no doubt about that. The world has changed immensely in the last 5 years. Obama, for a start. Clegg is no Obama, but then neither is Cameron.

The Tories have lost credibility by, ludicrously, promising to ‘ring-fence’ the gargantuan health budget (over £100 billion). Especially when the NHS has so much wastage in it. At least Labour and the Lib Dems have been honest enough not to rule it out. The public can sniff out populist policies like this. The Tories research has identified the NHS as a weak link for them, so they made a rash and unsustainable promise. As well as making an open-ended guarantee for expensive cancer drugs, no matter what the cost. It’s not credible.

In fact the Lib Dems are perhaps the least deceitful of the three main parties in that they have at least tried to cost some of their proposals. The public just don’t buy the argument that ‘efficiency savings’ and ‘cutting bureaucracy’ can fill the black hole of debt.

The Conservatives lack a single, consistent message. They could have stuck to a simple statement or question and hammered it relentlessly. It can only be about one thing: the debt. How about this: “Are you better off now than you were 5 years ago?” Or “Why trust the arsonist to put out the fire?” Or “Who bankrupted Britain?” Or “Labour have blown it”.

Instead they have jumped around from gimmick to gimmick, like a few extra quid to persuade people to get married. As I have said in previous posts, Gordon Brown has actually won the leaders’ debates, simply because, like all good generals, he succeeded in choosing the ground that the battle was fought on. In a word, ‘cuts’. He relentlessly put Cameron on the defensive by challenging him to match Labour’s preposterous spending plans – when the battle ground should be : why trust the arsonist to put out the fire?

The only inventive thing the Tories have come out with is the idea of the ‘Big Society’ (presumably to replace the ‘Big State’). It’s a good idea on its own merit – the State has, after all, failed to alleviate social problems, or run the economy – but it doesn’t chime with the economic climate, the economic debates or people’s most pressing concerns. The ideological tide is shifting towards more state intervention, not less. So although a good idea, the Tories have shot themselves in the foot with it.

Labour’s theme is ‘Tory cuts’; the Lib Dems is ‘we are different’. The Tories don’t have a theme. In a way they are doomed in the same way that Labour are; except for the Tories their downfall came from the arrogance of assuming that because the economic situation is so bad they only had to turn up to win. Looks like they will regret that now.

News Flash: Nick Clegg is actually a politician

2010-04-20T23:26:00.000+01:00

He's not a charity worker or a celebrity campaigner like Joanna Lumley. He's a plain old politician, ie he will say and do just about anything to get you to vote for him.

As I explained in my previous post, I don't think Clegg won the leaders' debate on ITV. Based on analysis of the arguments I declared Gordon Brown the winner.

Now Clegg-mania seems to have taken hold. The surge in the Lib Dems popularity is out of all proportion to his performance in the debate and his actual arguments. His surge has been almost entirely media hype. Boris Johnson got it right when he said that the Clegg bubble was the biggest load of guff since Diana's funeral. Why? Well firstly because a lot of people who have switched suddenly to the Lib Dems didn't actually watch the debate. Secondly because the media needed to construct some excitement and so have whipped up a frenzy. And thirdly because people have taken to Clegg in the mistaken belief that he isn't a politician; that he's just a voter like them who is fed up with the status quo and thinks the scoundrels in Parliament should just be given a good kicking.

We live in an age that worships the cult of celebrity and is driven by the media. Stunted by information overload in every area of media communications the public has an insatiable appetite for novelty. Our attention spans have decreased and the depth of discourse, especially about politics, has plummeted.

So Clegg appears as the non-politician. There was Cameron, happily thinking that he would sail to victory by donning the mantle of 'change', when along came Clegg with an even more engaging 'change' narrative: these two tired old parties have run Britain for decades, so why not try something new? The public seem to be buying it and Labour and the Tories are at sixes and sevens over what to do about it.

I've just seen Eric Pickles, the Tory party chairman, on the BBC News Channel, insisting that the Tories have much in common with the Liberal Democrats. In the debate Brown was falling over himself to insist that "I agree with Nick" over and over. Both parties have resorted to 'love bombing rather than carpet-bombing' the Lib Dems, in the words of a journalist on the News Channel. They have calculated that attacking him makes them looking even more like the old entrenched parties of the past, doggedly defending the status quo and resisting 'change'. That accursed word again.

But Nick Clegg is not really an agent of change. Well he is proposing some changes, like separating the retail and investment arms of banks, which is a very good thing. And taking the first £10k of earnings out of tax, which is an excellent thing. But as I've explained before, you couldn't fit a cigarette paper between the parties on ideological grounds. Thanks to Labour the country is virtually bankrupt, so the next administration - Con, Lab, Lib or coalition - will be a government that administers, not changes.

Today's Guardian made a laughable (and I hope tongue-in-cheek) comparison between Clegg and Obama. Presumably because he is now the owner of all the change-y hope-y stuff. But he has been in politics a while now. The Liberals have been around in some shape or form since 1857. He yells and barracks in Parliament as well as the rest of them. He has made some good noises about rolling back the nanny state and devolving power to people but is also mad-keen on shedding m more power up to Brussels and the European superstate. He wants your money. And he wants not so much change as power. Whatever his pluses, and the Liberal Democrats' strong points - and they have many - no-one should lose sight of this.

Election debate and lies about Trident

2010-04-18T21:10:00.000+01:00

Something caught my attention during the debate last Thursday. It was a big fat lie, uttered by both Cameron and Brown. Nothing new there you might say - what else are politicians supposed to do? But this concerns nuclear weapons, so as lies go it's pretty severe in its implications

It was during the part of the debate dealing with economic policy, and more specifically on defence cuts. Nick Clegg said that the Lib Dems would scrap the replacement for Trident, the submarine-launched nuclear missile system that the UK currently uses. (Frequently mistakenly referred to as 'scrapping Trident', it is actually the replacement for Trident that is up for the chop here.)

Brown and Cameron jumped on him instantly, saying that they would keep Britain's 'independent' nuclear deterrent. The operative word here is 'independent'.

But Trident is not independent. Not in the slightest. Because the satellite systems that are used to guide the missiles once launched are owned, and operated, by the USA. So all the Americans have to do is switch off the satellites and the Trident missiles would be about as much use as wet cabbage. They would be unable to launch, never mind reach a target. America therefore has an absolute veto over Britain's nuclear weapons. So in fact we don't have nuclear weapons at all.

Now Cameron and Brown are well-informed people. They know this fact very well. Trident gives us no independence, in fact it makes us entirely de-pendent. So when they told the public that this system was 'independent' they were lying.When your most powerful weapons system can be switched off like a TV set by a foreign power there's not much point to it - except to make you a hostage not so much to a foreign enemy but to a foreign friend. Or should that be 'friend'. Because how in blazes can you be independent when your strongest card is not held by you at all?

If we really wanted an 'independent' nuclear deterrent, one that serves the interests of this country and not one 5,000 miles away, we should scrap the replacement for Trident and invest in a aircraft-launched nuclear delivery system like either the French frappe de force, or the one that Israel supposedly has. They don't rely on American satellites that don't belong to them. But they are no less independent for it.

Replacing Trident with a like-for-like system would cost the UK about £100 billion over the course of 10 years or so. Pretty serious money. Clegg's argument was that this was a Cold War-era system that was designed 'to flatten St Petersburg or Moscow', as he put it, and was therefore not suited to the new and uncertain era of globalised terrorism, falied states and proliferating nuclear technology. The whole point of having a submarine-based system was that it was undetectable (supposedly) and so couldn't be taken out by the Soviet Union's own missiles in a surprised 'first strike'. Thus the 'deterrent'.

What Clegg tried to say was that scrapping Trident replacement is not equivalent to scrapping nuclear weapons. Why he didn't ram the point home, and for good measure accuse Cameron and Brown of putting our nukes in the pocket of a foreign power, at eye-watering expense, is beyond me. Perhaps he felt it was too inflammatory. Or maybe he wanted to talk less about it to avoid appearing weak on defence. But I think he just chickened out.

2010 Election debate 1 - Review

2010-04-16T01:11:00.003+01:00

Just watched the first ever live TV debate between the main party leaders for a British general election. Here is the review.
---------------------

Extraordinary opening statement from Cameron, praising Labour for things they had done – without specifying them! He also decided to play the ‘honesty’ card by apologising unilaterally for the expenses scandal, thereby drawing attention to it and automatically associating the scandal with the Tories. I think his strategy backfired. It felt forced.

The first topic was immigration. Cameron made a cringing reference to a ‘black man’ who came up to him in Exeter telling him how there were too many foreigners here. Clegg talked about ‘good’ and ‘bad’ immigration. I don’t think it’s that…black and white. It’s more complex than that. Brown always struggling because (unlike the other two) as he has a record to defend, and there is a wide consensus that the immigration system is in chaos. Only Clegg focussed on the ‘points’ system, presumably similar to the one Australia has – he sounded the most convincing. Cameron tied it in to the welfare system, hinting at the feeling a lot of people have about foreigners ‘scrounging’ benefits. It sounded a little unpleasant. But I think Cameron nailed Clegg on his unrealistic idea of restricting immigrants to just one region of the UK.

Verdict: Cameron has blown this one. Clegg > Brown > Cameron

Law and Order. Cameron talked about cutting paperwork, which doesn’t wash any more. Clegg talked about ‘more police on our streets’, which sounds simplistic of course. But he linked it with ID cards, which was smart. Brown was able to point to falling crime, so he was on surer ground here. Trouble is, no matter how low crime is people will always feel that ‘something needs to be done’. Cameron mentions drug rehabilitation, but it felt too much like a cliché. Clegg wanted to talk about early intervention which to me felt like he had a better grasp of how to change people’s behaviour. Brown challenged Cameron’s police funding quite effectively and got in a few lousy quips about Cameron’s airbrushed posters and Ashcroft’s funding. It sounded horribly rehearsed and childish - and hypocritical.

Verdict: Good ideas from Clegg, good defence from Brown. Clegg > Brown > Cameron

MPs expenses. All 3 of them fell over themselves to condemn duck houses etc. Brown demanded reform of the political system – but why hasn’t he reformed it over the last 13 years? Cameron talked incessantly about ‘cuts’, which actually goes down well when the topic is MPs. Clegg highlighted that the Lib Dems wanted the most far-reaching reforms which Labour and the Tories opposed. Cameron pointed out, yet again, that Labour has had a long time to reform things. Clegg was at a natural (and unfair) advantage yet again with his image as the outside maverick.

Verdict: Dead heat between Cameron and Clegg. Brown in 3rd place.

Education. The young questioner said that pupils were over-tested. Cameron couldn’t resist banging on about his kid at state school – a little too much. Cameron wanted to ‘set schools free’, and condemned bureaucracy. Clegg agreed, which began to sound like a ganging up on Brown. Clegg wanted an ‘education freedom act’, which sounds grand. Brown tried to defend Labour’s record, saying that underperforming schools should be taken over. Cameron got in first with the discipline argument, scoring valuable points. Clegg wanted smaller class sizes – but who doesn’t? Everyone knows that costs money, and money is something we don’t have much of. So I didn’t rate his argument. Brown wanted to paint the Tories as the party that cuts education; Cameron countered smartly with a reference to the NI increase, but Brown’s attacks about cuts struck home quite well. I couldn’t understand why Cameron and Clegg didn’t expose Labour’s appalling record on educational standards – 1 in 3 state schools ‘inadequate’ according to OFSTED. But hey, I wasn’t on the stage!

Verdict: Brown shades it because of his offensive posture. Brown > Cameron > Clegg

Budget Deficit. The big one. Cameron focussed yet again on the NI increase and NHS waste. Trouble is, the British people are cynical about savings through efficiencies. Brown talked about the ‘terrible’ recession and argued for Keynesian state intervention, trying to scare people with a ‘double dip’ recession. Clegg sounded more realistic about efficiency savings. He mentioned a banking tax, so brownie points there. Talking of Brownie points….Brown highlighted that the Tories are quite internationally isolated on wanting to pull back state spending. Cameron went for Clegg on his £17bn tax cut. Good to see the Lib Dems being challenged, for once! Good point from Cameron that Labour want to spend now and compensate by taxing later; he also mentioned (twice) the 100 business leaders who had backed him. I couldn’t understand why Clegg or Cameron didn’t skewer Brown on his mishandling of the nation’s finance or challenge him on his failure on banking regulation.

Verdict: incredibly, Brown did very well. Brown > Clegg > Cameron

Defence. A question on under-resourced troops. Cue a love-fest from all three on ‘our boys’, it sounded like resources were no issue. I was waiting to see who would discuss whether the troops should even be here, and what the strategy is. Brown was the one who did so, and also talked about an exit strategy. Blunder from the other two in waiting too long to do the same. Cameron wanted a ‘defence review’. Why doesn’t he smash into Brown because of his under-funding of the forces? Is he scared of sounding too mean and nasty? Suddenly Cameron raises the ‘helicopter deficit’. Maybe he's heard me, but it’s too little, too late.
Clegg wants to kill off Trident, again – but the other two ask what if the world changes and we suddenly need it?

Verdict: Brown sounded the most statesman-like. Brown > Cameron > Clegg

Health. Brown promises free health checkups, cancer specialists to see you within 2 weeks, GPs in the evenings. Cameron praises the NHS perhaps a little bit too much, then promises year-on-year increases and cancer drugs available regardless of cost. Clegg slightly mocks Cameron’s love affair with the NHS. Great point from Clegg on the Government’s IT failures in the NHS. Brown highlights the Tories’ difference on spending guarantees between the NHS and other departments. Clegg clever to point out that the Conservatives sound incredible when they say that spending can be increased on the NHS while NI increases are delayed while the deficit is simultaneously cut. Suddenly the direction changes into a debate on the LibDems £10k tax threshold. Whoever is right, they are debating a Lib Dem policy, so Clegg has to be pleased with that.

Verdict: Cameron sounds unrealistic to me, and people remember the much longer waiting lists under the Tories. Brown > Clegg > Cameron

Elderly Care. Cameron guarantees residential care for people who have saved a certain amount. Clegg wants to work together with the other parties. Brown tries to move to a longer-term solution, saying he’s setting up a commission. Cameron focuses on staying at home rather than going to homes and wants to give breaks to carers. It sounds good. Clegg agrees on carers.

Verdict: for once, Cameron did well. Cameron > Clegg > Brown

Finishing statements.
Clegg very optimistic, I could almost see him looking in to the sunlit uplands. Brown did a bit better by going back to big questions – how much state injection does the economy need, what is the level of spending. Then he laid into Cameron’s plans. Cameron for his part actually said ‘choose hope over fear’, which was so cheesy it was like a fondue. That only works in America. I think he made a huge mistake by not savaging Brown’s record on anything.

One thing that struck me in this debate is that the candidate who got in first with an argument tended to leave the other 2 trailing, even if the others agreed with him. Thus Brown won the defence debate because he talked about the strategy in Afghanistan first; Cameron won the elderly care debate because he was first off the block with talking about looking after carers. Clegg really loved this debate because this was his chance to finally appear on a level playing field with the main parties. I feel that Cameron fluffed it by not going after Brown’s record of economic mismanagement, which is utterly shocking by any standards. I couldn’t understand it. I know the Tories don’t want to be ‘the nasty party’ but you need killer one-liners in a debate like this. Cameron didn’t seem to want to highlight the UK’s failures in education, defence, or anything else. Nothing about the banking regulatory failure either.

Brown by contrast had a much more offensive stance, attacking Cameron (but not Clegg) and thereby deflecting attention away from his own record. Brown was dogged in his line that spending should not be cut. It was an effective tactic to have a clear theme running through the whole debate. Clegg only partly made the most of his unique position as something of an outsider. Easier for him to attack everyone else, he has less to defend. He did well in parts when he positioned himself above the fray but he frequently found himself challenged, such as on Trident. Nonetheless he was coherent and backed up his arguments very well; and it was a good move to name-check every one of the questioners. Sure, Clegg was the most polished and assured, the best speaker and the smoothest communicator – by some way. A little like Blair. But I’m focussing here on what they actually said, and how powerfully they put their arguments.

A lot of it was horribly rehearsed. Brown tried to neutralised Clegg as an alternative to Labour by constantly trying to agree with him. Cameron tried to be apologetic all the time to appear honest, but I thought it just made him look weak. Clegg benefitted the most, no doubt about it. But his tactic of trying to stand above the fray began to get very tiresome for me. We all know he’s still a politician with an agenda and he couldn’t keep pretending to be something totally different to the other two. Brown is a poor communicator, boring and uninspiring, but he had a game-plan he stuck to rigidly: we need to keep the financial stimulus and the Tories will cut public services more. Simple and effective. He made Cameron uncomfortable with his jibes about Lord Ashcroft and airbrushed posters. Cameron relied too much on personal anecdotes I felt, and didn’t sound credible by banging on about National Insurance. The public knows that it's a drop in the ocean, really.

Stop Press: I’ve just watched, on Newsnight, a claim that Brown used statistics on immigration and policing that were false, so much so that the Advertising Standards Agency made Labour withdraw adverts with the claims. So Brown lied – should we be surprised?

Overall verdict: Amazingly, I thought Brown won it. I certainly didn’t expect that. Clegg also benefited a lot from just being there. Cameron could have done a lot, lot better.

Final Result: Brown > Clegg > Cameron.

General Election and personal finance - which party is best?

2010-04-11T21:08:00.004+01:00

With the British general election looming I have been researching the 3 main parties' policies on personal finance. During the course of this research I have had a reply from one Victoria Crawford, who works at the office of Mark Hoban, Conservative spokesman for financial services. I also contacted the office of Vince Cable, the Liberal Democrats shadow chancellor, but despite repeated promises received no reply. So for the Lib Dems I have had to rely on the research I have done myself.

I have deliberately avoided comment on areas of macro-economic policy, ie tax and spending policy. To do so would have made the article unwieldy and lacking in focus. There is already an enormous amount of material out there on the taxation policies of the 3 main parties.So I have ommitted income tax, VAT, National Insurance, capital gains tax, inheritance tax etc. I've also left out pensions.

There is not so much commentary on areas of personal finance - such as consumer rights with regards to utilities, credit cards. What policies there are tend to be swallowed up in broader announcements.

On each area of personal finance I have given the parties a score out of 10. Just to make it more fun :)

1. ISAs
The Government has recently announced an extension to ISA saving limits – from April 2011 they will rise in line with inflation. It is already set to rise from £7,200 to £10,200 with the cash ISA limit rising to £5,100. So with interest rates at an extremely low level by historical standards this is relatively good news. 7/10 for Labour.

The Conservatives and Liberal Democrats have announced no specific plans to change the ISA limits. When asked about savings George Osborne simply says: “We are looking at some very specific tax measures on how we can encourage saving.” But no details. In fact when asked about savings the Tories have always focussed on pensions – their main idea is to abolish the compulsory requirement to purchase an annuity, which they believe puts some people off saving. Good on rhetoric, short on detail.
For both Tories and Lib Dems: 5/10.

2. Store Cards/Credit CardsIf you choose to take out a loan, tread carefully. Store cards, credit cards and loans can all suck you further into debt if you’re not careful. The last few years have shown all of us the dangers of debt. What protection will the parties offer us?

The Government has just announced new consumer rights in the way credit card companies operate. From now on the most expensive debt on consumers' cards will be paid off first, reversing the current practice. We will have the right to choose not to receive credit limit increases and the right to reduce our credit limit at any time.

We will now be given more time to reject increases in our interest rate or credit limit and will have an annual statement that allows easy cost comparison with other providers.
People at risk of financial difficulties will be protected by a ban on increases in their credit limit and a ban on rises in their interest rate.

Gordon Brown said: “These new rights will put an end to the irresponsible lending practices that people have been most concerned about, and help cut the cost of borrowing”.

It’s an impressive raft of measures from Labour. In fact back in late 2008, the Government held a credit card summit, and warned lenders that it would ask for an OFT investigation if they didn’t commit to treating customers fairly. Following this, a set of principles came into force on 1 Jan 2009. These principles included increases in rates being limited to once every 6 months, no rate increases in the first year and providing 30 days’ notice of any increase in interest rates, giving you time to make other arrangements. So overall 7/10 for Labour.

The Conservatives plan to put warnings on credit card statements, obliging credit card providers to inform consumers of the level of debt they will reach if they only make minimum monthly payments. They will also pass legislation requiring all credit card statements and adverts to contain standardised information about borrowing costs. This will include exactly how much the credit will cost if only minimum repayments are made every month – and how long it will take to repay.

Their plan to put a limit on the interest that can be charged on store cards was copied by the Government soon after. On store cards they plan to introduce a cap on excessive store card interest rates, to be enforced by the OFT. They also want a cooling-off periods for store cards so people can't take them out and go straight to the counter and buy things. 9/10 for the Conservatives for being ahead of the game.

Liberal Democrat Shadow Business Secretary John Thurso has called for a maximum interest rate on credit cards Whiles agreeing with the Government that the most expensive debt should be paid off first e has criticised the lack of action on minimum repayments which means that credit card debt will still take decades to repay. “ The Government must do more to provide financial advice to all consumers to allow them to make informed lending decisions,” he said. 8/10.

3. Utilities
We have more choice than ever before in choosing who provides our services, from electricity to broadband. But we have to be wary. Unfair practices, being stuck in contracts, having no legal redress and falling prey to the tricks that companies use. Who will best protect our interests while energy companies make such tidy sums?

Labour’s record in this regard seems questionable. OFGEM, OFWAT and other regulators have been criticised for seeming to fail to put consumer interests ahead of utilities’ profits. 3/10 for Labour.

The Conservatives say they will ban energy companies from charging unfair profits on pre-payment energy meters. They also say they will ask the Office for Fair Trading to find out why firms seem much readier to put up prices and much slower to cut them.

The Tories will require energy companies to provide information on energy bills that shows customers clearly whether they are on the cheapest tariff offered by that company – and if they are not, shows them exactly how much they would save if they switched to the cheapest tariff, and how they can do so. 6/10.

The Liberal Democrats say that they will change the rules so that fuel bills reflect fuel costs. Energy and Climate Change shadow secretary Simon Hughes says that the party will focus on energy companies which he claims are ‘out of control’. This announcement was timed to come hot on the heels of the large profits announced by British Gas. They also claim that the energy regulator is ‘out of action’. “The six big beasts of the energy jungle must be tamed immediately – to stop their predatory activities which are so dangerous to the public,” he said.

The Lib Dems would make energy companies publish their profits on fuel bills and would prevent energy firms would be prevented from exercising a veto over regulatory changes to their operating licences.

Tying in with their ‘green energy’ strategy the Lib Dems would also implement a ‘Warm Homes’ scheme, a national programme to insulate every home in Britain to the highest energy efficiency standards within the next 10 years. How exactly they would do this remains a mystery but at least they are going after the companies. 5/10.

4. Internet & Broadband
The Government’s flagship policy on broadband is the Digital Economy Bill. It proposes to change how the regulator Ofcom operates, to encourage the spread of next generation broadband services but what will concern consumers most is its emphasis on clamping down on online piracy and illegal file sharing. The measures proposed could heavily penalise consumers, even when copyright is not clear, and give almost unfettered power to the Government to act against copyright infringement. It seems to contain rather a lot of ISP and Google-friendly amendments to it (many suggested by the Conservatives). 1/10 for Labour.

The Conservatives have broadly supported the Digital Economy Bill. However the Liberal Democrats have launched a fight against many aspects of the Bill, winning important concessions for consumers relating to illegal person to person file sharing.

As a result of Lib Dem amendments, no action to introduce "technical measures" (whether temporary account suspension, throttling or whatever) can be introduced until:

1. soft measures (letter writing) have been used
2. an evaluation of their effectiveness has been undertaken
3. an evaluation of the need for and likely effectiveness of technical measures has been undertaken
4. consultation has taken place
5. proposed legislation is brought before parliament for decision
6. there is an explicit assumption of innocence until proved guilty

Although the contest is not over, and there is no solid proposal to prevent users being disconnected, the Lib Dems win points for clearly fighting the consumer corner. 9/10

On broadband connections the Tories promised the UK would be "the first country in Europe to extend superfast 100 mbps broadband across most of the population". They hope that market forces would enable this to take place but have hinted that they would use the BBC licence fee to fund it. They also propose a ‘Data Freedom Act’ to release masses of Government data. 5/10.

5. Consumer Rights
Ofgem. Oftel,, the FSA. All were created to ensure fair play and protect consumer interests. Have they done a good job? Well they could certainly do a better one. What do the parties propose to do to protect consumer rights?

The Government seems to be satisfied with the roles of the watchdogs as they stand. On their website is the claim “Labour’s engagement in Europe has won a better deal for British families including securing cheaper phone calls and improving consumer rights. Labour action in Europe has also led to greater rights for workers and parents, including the right to guaranteed holiday and extra parental leave.” Is this true? You be the judge! We would rate it 5/10.

The Conservatives propose no radical change to the roles of the watchdogs either, but their policy is to create a new super-watchdog, the “Consumer Protection Agency”. They claim this will be a far more consumer-orientated, transparent and focused body than the FSA.They will also launch a free national financial advice service. 7/10

The Liberal Democrats would introduce a ‘Universal Code’ for organisations providing a service to the public. This will commit them to:
· Make one of the first options in their telephone response system be to speak to a human being
· Make their customer service phone number free to call from both mobiles and landlines
· Train staff to deal quickly and effectively with customer enquiries
· Make and keep appointments for visits, installations and phone calls within a one hour timeframe
Their proposals also include:
· A duty for energy companies to publish information on all available tariffs on their bills
· The immediate clearing of bank payments and transfers
· A requirement for restaurants and cafes to make their tipping policies clear to customers
· A beefed up consumer watchdog to name and shame companies involved in bad practice
· Measures to prevent supermarkets building up local monopolies

On the issue of the relationship between consumers and service providers the Lib Dems seem to be ahead of the game. The only quibble is that their Universal Service Code would be mandatory only for public sector organisations. It would be merely ‘encouraged’ for the private sector, with larger companies being forced only to report on their compliance with the code. Nonetheless, it’s very impressive. 10/10.

6. Bank Charges

The Supreme Court ruled recently that banks were justified in piling on sky-high charges for going overdrawn. Banks have made an estimated £2bn a year by charging customers hefty fees for unauthorised overdrafts, bounced cheques and direct debits, and suchlike. Although it may still be possible to reclaim charges from banks it may prove to be a long and difficult route. So what do the parties propose to do about it?

Nick Clegg, leader of the Liberal Democrats has said:“This is extremely disappointing and a blow for millions of bank customers.Having come so close to overhauling an unfair system of charging that penalises vulnerable groups of people, I know that the campaign will not just stop.The Liberal Democrats will continue the fight for fair bank charges in Parliament and push for a change in the law if necessary so that high street banks cannot keep ripping off their customers.”
The Conservatives financial affairs spokesman Mark Hoban said: “We were extremely disappointed with the Supreme Court ruling. The decision is a blow for consumers and creates uncertainty for the whole industry. The Office of Fair Trading has now said that it will look at other ways to change the banks’ behaviour, and we support that. This is all further evidence of the need for radical reform of financial regulation.. My party has already called for a competition review of banks - which must include consumer banking charges. We have been leading the way on financial regulation and have committed to setting up a new Consumer Protection Agency, which will look at all issues around consumer credit, bank charges and savings”. David Cameron has also said that he would definitely introduce a levy on banks to fund their debt to the taxpayer and create a rainy day fund for future bank crises. 7/10.

We can judge the parties by their actions, rather than their words. It was Vince Cable, the Lib Dem’s shadow chancellor who on the 11th November last year tabled an Early Day Motion in Parliament condemning the ‘disproportionality’ of the banking charges and urging action by the government and the banking sector. There’s no doubt that the Liberal Democrats have been leading the charge against banking charges: 9/10.

The Government for its part has backed the OFT action but seem a little reticent about taking on the banks on this one. In part this stems from not having the luxury that the opposition parties have of being able to carp from the sidelines rather than make actual decisions with actual consequences. The Government have, surprisingly perhaps, been outflanked by the Tories on a bank levy, saying they prefer coordinated international action. For Labour 6/10.

7. Financial education
With personal debt having become such an issue in the past few years, we round off by examining just what the parties’ attitude to the public’s education in financial matters is.

Labour propose that ‘financial education’ be compulsory in British schools from 2011. A little thin. 5/10

The Conservatives propose to create Britain's first free national financial advice service. They also say that they will give every family in Britain the right to a free ‘financial health check’, and get independent expert help on pensions, debt and other financial products.
They say that this will be funded in full by a new £50million social responsibility levy on the financial services sector, including consumer credit firms. 7/10.

The Liberal Democrats are supporting a plan for the BBC to launch a campaign of public education through all its media channels, directing people to the appropriate advice and information to manage theirfinances. It’s certainly a radical proposal.
Nick Clegg explained further, saying, "We need to see a huge publicity blitz on this issue from the BBC. If public sector broadcasting is to mean anything, it should mean stepping up to help in a public crisis."

"And financial literacy has to be a much bigger part of education. We have to be honest: maths for life is more important than trigonometry for most people."

As part of this "financial literacy" plan, the Lib Dems are advocating a comprehensive network of free financial advice centres, funded 50-50 between the banks and the Government, to ensure everyone has access to impartial information and advice regarding extreme debt cases, issues around benefit and tax credits and pension advice and repossessions. 9/10.

Conclusion
Personal debt, money management and financial management have been pushed to the very top of the political agenda for this year’s general election. I have not covered all the issues that affect personal finance in this article –do so would mean that no area of economic policy should be left out. But I hope I have given you a guide to how the parties are shaping up when it comes to deciding who is best placed to help you manage your finances effectively.

Final scores:
Labour:7+ 7+ 3+ 1+ 5+6+ 5 = 34
Conservatives 5+ 9+6+ 5+ 7+ 7+ 7 = 46
Liberal Democrats:5+ 8 + 5+ 9 + 10 + 9 + 9 = 55

The Rules of Work - avoid officespeak

2010-03-26T11:48:00.004Z

There is a plague which has been stalking the offices of Britain for several years. Possibly this infection spreads back decades. I call it office-speak. It's also known as management-speak, or, more concisely, as 'bullshit'.

When I first started off in the world of work back in 1995 as a slightly bewildered 21 year-old I remember registering at a temping agency in the City of London. I met the recruitment consultants in there and they gave me a touch typing test and a spelling test. I did ok.

But at the end I remember the lady saying to me "we'll touch base later". I thought - what? What did you just say? You'll touch my what? Not in here you won't, love. It was my first exposure to the total and utter crap that office workers (and in particular managers) like to come out with. What she meant was "we'll talk later". That's it. That's all you needed to say.

Unfortunately office-speak has become so ingrained into British office life that phrases that at first made me recoil now seem boringly routine. Tragically I even find myself talking about 'workstreams', 'proactive leadership' and the like. So this is also a note to self: stop talking bullshit and speak plain English! People will respect you for it.

So here, for your help and amusement, is my bullshit translator. A few are so baffling I've assigned them only a question mark.

Office bullshit -- English

Work package = Work
Touch base = Talk
Raincheck = Meeting
Client-facing = Meet
Synergy = ?
The big picture = That work you have to do
Put on the back burner = Do it later
Ball Park = ?
Cascade = Tell
Scope = Work to do
Interface = Talk
Think outside the box = Think
Ticks in boxes = Do things
Gap analysis = Think
Out of the loop = Tell someone
Fast track = Do
Mindset = ?
Downsize = Sack
Best practice = Work
Go the extra mile = Work
Process improvement = Do some work
Win-win situation = You need to get on with the work
Results driven = ?
Benchmark = Compare
Workstream = Work
Put to bed = Do
Skill set = Skill
Core business = Work
The big picture = Work to do
Going forward = Do
Traction = Doing some work?
Quality-driven = You need to do some work
Ramp up = Do
Blue sky thinking = Think
Time-bound = Hurry up and to do some work

If you have any more, or can help me with the ones I'm struggling with, please write in!

Dr David Starkey on Question Time

2010-03-20T00:49:00.006Z

I've just watched a rerun of Question Time on the BBC's i-Player. The most entertaining member of the panel was, as I suspected it might be, Dr David Starkey. He was arrogant, prickly, temperamental - and brilliant.

He had a few advantages over his fellow panellists, of course. Not being a politician, for a start. (And these days, that's an instant bonus.) Secondly being a minor TV celebrity; never discount the power of the media. And thirdly having a historian's mind and perspective, which perhaps explains why he was so cutting and eloquent.

Again and again he hit the nail on the head, wiping the floor with the various political mouthpieces and ignoramuses on the panel (and the audience). His expose of Gordon Brown's leadership and New Labour's failures was particularly savage.

I found myself squirming at his pomposity and gall, but I couldn't help agree with most of what he said. "A devalued currency is a sign of a devalued Government," he said. Which was a quote from Gordon Brown when the Tories were in office! Ker-ching! Let's see any Labour supporter squirm out of that one. Kind of hard when your own leader was the one who said it.

His sarcasm was not designed to win over waverers, but he didn't care. And neither did I. He exposed fallacies in a way a straight-laced politician never could have. When the repugnant Margaret Beckett tried to pretend that 35,000 extra jobs were evidence that Government policy was working Starkey shot back, cuttingly: "If you spend tens and tens of billions of pounds, of course you will reduce unemployment - by 35,000!" Bullseye.

He then demolished the UNITE cabin crew at BA who decided they wanted to strike, pointing out that they were paid double - yes double - what most cabin crew get. (Must be easier if you're a well-paid TV historian, I thought, but he had nonetheless nailed them.)

He slaughtered Brown for his deception or gross negligence (there is no other explanation) in falsely claiming at The Chilcott enquiry that spending on defence had increased in real terms each year, and then exploded when he talked of Gordon Brown 'milking' the army for political purposes.

I thought that, as a historian, he would perhaps be on less sure ground when discussing the Bulger murder (which I have discussed myself on this humble little blog), but in fact he gave an insightful and interesting analysis, eschewing populism by calling neither for vengence nor mollycoddling of the perpetrators, as audience members have done both on this show and the show with Will Self and Carol Vorderman a few weeks ago.

Vorderman came across as a nut, and not a terrifically well-informed one at that. Today there was a loon in the audience, a young lady with blonde hair who couldn't explain why 10 was too young to understand wrongdoing and who showed no understanding of the wider context of child behaviour. It's always amusing to watch an audience big-mouth go silent when they realise they haven't thought through their point and that their argument doesn't stand up to any kind of cross-examination. Great tv.

Starkey showed just such an understanding however. I was surprised. He pointed out that in Norway a similar case had concluded with the killer being 'nurtured' back into society. But he cleverly pointed out the different social attitudes that Norwegians have. The different population, living space, and attitudes the Norwegians had. He pointedly tied in the lack of discipline that young people experience, painting it as a sign of neglect rather than weakness. "We're confused in this country about how to treat children," he said.

He didn't comment on what should be done to Venables and Thomson, which to me was a sign of thoughtfulness - after all, how can anyone really say when they haven't themselves examined the boys? He pointed out the wider failures to discipline and nurture children and tried to address that issue instead. A wise move. The only discordant note was when he suggested that in the UK we "have 25%" of feral children. What did he mean by that? That we have a 25% share of European 'ferals'? Or that 25% of British kids are 'feral'? I think he was wide of the mark with that one.

Another wally in the audience started blabbering that something or other he said was 'disgusting', leaving Starkey to point out she had actually agreed with him! Can't they introduce an IQ minimum for Question Time audience members?

But then he was back on it. The Green leader, Caroline Lucas, spouted verbal diarrhoea for much of the show. Big mistake with Starkey at the end of the table. I remember he once described himself in an interview as an 'academic thug', and he was nothing less with her. When she said we should ignore the deficit and keep spending like there's no tomorrow to keep unemployment down Starkey took his medieval axe to her head.

She was in 'never-never land', and 'spitting in the wind', he sneered. He pointed to Greece, Italy and Spain and their deficits, and explained that when Britain had a debt 3 times its output we had a little thing called an Empire to export our problems to. And that amyway economists don't control the market. It shut Lucas up. He then twisted the knife by reminding everyone that virtually all the jobs Labour have created have been in the public sector -and that the public sector didn't create any wealth. So it can't drag us out of recession. Game, set and match.

I think if I ever met David Starkey I would probably dislike him for his arrogance and condescending manner. He doesn't seem like the world's most pleasant chap. But he was right, absolutely right, on most things on Question Time and he was great entertainment. Sometimes you need a maverick like that to point out that the emperor has no clothes. Get him back on Question Time soon.

James Bulger's killers and the question of evil

2010-03-16T16:29:00.002Z

There has been a furore around the two boys who murdered James Bulger over 10 years ago and whether they are innately, or instrinsically evil. There has also related argument about whether they should have been tried in an adult court.

Let me address the second point first. It seems to me that it is not the severity of the crime that should determine where the accused should be tried, but their level of maturity. If you are an adult then the crime should be tried in an adult court, whether the charge is murder of speeding. Conversely, if you are a child you should go to a children’s court, or whatever passes for that these days.

The problem is that by ‘adult’ what is really meant is ‘an adult level of maturity’. Not quite the same thing. So a severely retarded adult, or one with mental illness that significantly impairs their understanding of wrongdoing, ought to have special provision made for them. One can only be convicted of a crime if (a) a jury decides it that it is beyond reasonable doubt that you committed the offence and (b) if your level of maturity is sufficient for a jury conclude that you knew what you were doing – ie that it was criminal.

I have never met Thomson and Venables and have no expertise in child psychology. The CPS, police
and Home Secretary of the time, Kenneth Clark, decided that their level of understanding and maturity was sufficient for them to attend an adult court. However, some with experience of child crime disagree. I leave it to them to decide. Everyone wants to be an expert when these difficult cases arise; everyone wants to be judge, jury and (in some cases) executioner. All I (and you) have to go on is logic, reason, our own experience and our instinct. I will apply these principles; I can do no more.

Understanding of criminality and moral wrongdoing is not a digital (ie ‘on’ or ‘off’) mode – it is something that evolves and improves with age, or more accurately with maturity. Doubtless the two killers knew what they were doing was wrong. But they are not adults. Precocious in their level of violence and planning maybe, but not adults. My conclusion is therefore that they should not have been tried in an adult court, even though (as Denise Fergus the mother of James Bulger recently said) the crime was clearly of a severity at the more extreme end of adult offending.

I say again: an adult court is for defendants with an adult level of maturity, not an adult level of wrongdoing. I think the case that the two boys (at the time) had an adult level of maturity is shaky at best. The European Court of Human Rights agreed and denounced the trial as unfair.

There is a difference between guilt and culpability. A retarded person may be guilty of a crime – but if he didn’t know what he was doing then he is not culpable.

So the question with the two boys is not whether they are guilty of the crime – of that they most certainly are – but how culpable they are. Whether they should have been tried in an adult court is a question of fairness, linked to culpability which is in turn dependent on the level of understanding.

That brings us on to a related, more philosophical topic – are Venables and Thomson evil? I believe they were at the time, but only to the extent that a child can knowingly indulge in severe wrongdoing. Evilness is a sliding scale, and a temporary state. So their wickedness has to be heavily qualified. They are less evil, not more evil, than an adult convicted of an identical crime. A belief has spread that children who commit wicked acts must be more evil than an adult who does the same. It appals us so much that we conjecture and speculate that the level of evil is inversely proportional to the age of the offenders. It’s one way that society copes with what it cannot comprehend. I believe that the exact opposite is true; that greater maturity confers greater guilt.

But I don’t believe that they – or anyone else – is innately or intrinsically evil. No one is. No-one is born evil, not even Hitler or Stalin. A baby is not evil, it is innocent. They behaviours are moulded by their environment and the belief system they develop is either restrained or encouraged by their nature. All of us have the ability to become evil. Some people think that only acts – like torture for pleasure – are evil, and that individuals themselves can never be evil. I disagree. If someone knowingly, and with knowledge of an act’s immorality, commits such acts, then moral turpitude has become assimilated into their character. They have become, to an extent, evil. All of us are capable of wrongdoing (and all of us do it) but a level of immoral behaviour that harms others to an extremely grievous extent, with no remorse or moral equivocation shown, serves to render the perpetrator, for a while at least, evil.

I also believe that no-one is beyond redemption. Even some of the guards who worked at Auschwitz have shown remorse, understood their wrongdoing and have tried to make amends. That doesn’t exculpate them, and doesn’t remove the need for a just and severe punishment. But it does serve to remind us that no-one is beyond redemption.

Personally I think it would have been better if social services had identified these two boys as deviant and dangerous and taken them away from their so-called parents and into care – as long as that care consisted of giving them clear principles, disclipline and a sense of self-respect. Early and rigorous intervention may have prevented the atrocity.

Since this hadn’t been done, they should have been tried in a children’s court and assessed psychologically. They had to be punished with a severity commensurate with what experts decided was their level of maturity. A lengthy jail term followed by indefinite licence seems reasonable, and that’s what’s been done. At the age of 27 it’s not reasonable to continue to punish someone for something they did when you were 10. An indefinite licence is a form of life sentence. Personally I think these boys have severe psychological and mental problems and should be treated. That doesn’t obviate the need for punishment, it simply an acknowledgment that a child who is capable of torturing a child for kicks needs help as much as punishment. A mature adult also requires both, but his potential for rehabilitation is far slimmer.

The small crumb of comfort we can draw from this case is that Thomson and Venables are perhaps not beyond redemption. One of them has apparently committed a crime while out on license. Since very few people, including me, know exactly what he did it’s hard to comment. Other than to say that the success or otherwise of his rehabilitation must be reassessed and the need to protect the public outweighs the need for his rehabilitation.

A final point. The bloodlust of people who want the 2 killers themselves murdered is appalling and ironic. Pouring blood on top of blood because you’re not satisfied with the sentence? Well I’ve got good news for them: they may be satisfied after all. So many people within the prison service know the new identities of Venables and Thomson that it only takes one to blab to a tabloid or post it on the internet and the secret will be out. They may well be dead men walking. Is that a fitting legacy for Jamie Bulger?

The Rules of Work - set expectations

2010-03-16T14:08:00.000Z

At work, and in life generally, always cultivate a reputation as a Man of His Word. In other words, when you say you’re going to do something, you do it. Always.

This may present a problem when dealing with work. If someone asks (or tells) you to do some work and you agree to a deadline what happens if you then can’t meet that delivery date?

So always set expectations. The basic principle is to over-deliver. So: if you think you can get that report to someone by Tuesday, tell them you will have it on their desk by Wednesday. If you think a project will take 6 months to deliver, tell the project board it will be done in 7. Then, in both cases, if you complete the work earlier than promised you’ve got some brownie points.

A good tactic is to give out a ‘sweetner’ if you know you can’t meet someone’s initial expectations. For example, if someone wants a summary within 2 days but you know from your priorities and workload that you can only deliver it within 3 days you could

tell them you will get to them within 4 days.
Offer to send them an outline of the summary, perhaps just the salient or crucial points, by the end of the first day. This will get them off your back and inspire confidence in them that you care about their work.

If time is tight it need only be a few lines in an email, sent to the requesting person to summarise the content of your discusson. For example:

Work package:
Objectives: a, b, c
Delivered to: x
Created by : y
Due date: dd/m/yy

Sometimes even something as simple as this shows that you are taking someone seriously and they will cut you a lot more slack. You're not over-committing to anything either.

The Rules of Work - lock your PC

2010-03-10T15:24:00.002Z

At one place I worked at someone left their PC unlocked when they went for a cup of coffee. It wasn't until some time later that they realised that some 'jokers' had changed the home page of their internet site to a pornographic website.

The lesson is that you should AWLAYS lock your PC when you are away from it. Even if you are only stepping away for 15 seconds to pick up something, make a cup of tea or look at something in the next room. You press the CTRL, ALT and DELETE buttons at the same time and then choose 'lock computer' from the various options.

When you return to your desk you press the CTRL, ALT and DELETE buttons at the same time again and enter your password to unlock your PC.

It sounds paranoid but it isn't. It's good practice. It's not just that someone coud maliciouly interfere with your PC's settings for a 'joke'. It's because there are nosey people about who like to see what's in your Inbox, and even what kind of documents you have. They don't need to physically do anything with your keyboard, they can just peer at your screen. And given that all of us have private or confidential stuff on our PCs it's better to be safe than sorry.

So lock your PC. I always do.

The declining pound ain't so bad

2010-03-04T10:27:00.005Z

There has been lots of naysaying, hysteria and near panic over the fall in value of the pound. But I think it's time to chill out.

Firstly, one advantage of staying out of the Euro is that our currency is free to float against other currencies - like the Euro. The Greeks and the Irish can't do that, so they're a little stuck. They can't devalue their currencies.

And right now the weak pound has its advantages: British goods are cheaper to buy in Europe, the US and Asia. Sure, foreign goods become a little dearer for us but we're heavily reliant on our exports to lead growth. So what's the big deal?

Secondly the pound isn't actually that low, viewed historically. It's still above the level it was during the Thatcher years. $1.50 is more or less where it's hovered since the 80s. The trouble is, people have short memories, and everyone loves a crisis. If there isn't one, they want to convince us that not only does one actually exist, but it's going to wipe us all out. We're doomed, doomed I tell you! Head for the hills! The Conservatives play this card. Well it's understandable in a way, they have an election to win. Cue apocalyptic warnings about how sterling is going down the plughole.

The trouble is that it isn't really. People think that if a currency is 'stong' then that is a reflection of a nation's status in the world - powerful, healthy and virile. Now it's true that over the very long term successful economies will have a strong currency (because people want to buy it) whereas less successful economies will have a weak one (for the inverse reason).

But we're not talking about very long-term here. The kerfuffle (I love that word) over sterling is just people making a lot of noise for their own ends. I've already mentioned the Tories; now consider the hedge fund managers. If you're always crying wolf it helps your case if the lupine menace actually shows up once in a while. So the hedge fund managers are sounding the alarm in the hope that sterling really will collapse so they can make a quick buck. They've bet against sterling, you see.

So we can ignore the hedge funds, and the politicians with an agenda. They're just squealing, but the unblinking eye of the internet, and the megaphone of instantaneous 24 hr news reports has magnified their squeal into a roar.
The reality is that buyers are still queuing up to buy Government gilts, and the credit rating agencies have no credibility any more.
Ok, so foreign holidays are a little dearer right now. So what? Go to Greece instead people, your money will go a bit further there. And anyway if sterling continues to slide then, well -it will be easier to persuade people to buy our debt, won't it?

The Rules of Work - snack on fruit

2010-03-04T10:02:00.003Z

An article in today's Metro reveals that vitamin tablets are virtually useless after a few days, as their nutritional content is degraded by exposure to humidity and, erm, air.

http://www.metro.co.uk/news/815863-stored-vitamins-go-off-in-a-week

Most vitamin tablets are a swizz. They are part of the 'alternative' health industry that preys on the public's scepticism of established science and their desire to believe in a conspiracy of misinformation that can be broken if only we look at alternatives.

The reality is that it's better to eat an orange than take a vitamin C tablet, or a Berocca. It makes commercial sense for berocca manufacturers to tell you that you need vitamins, because you're not getting enough, you see. They cost about £3 a pack. If you ate an orange you would get masses of vitmain C, and save yourself a small fortune. 'Smoothies' are another rip-off, overpriced to the point of daylight robbery. Eat a banana instead.

I notice that the most committed advocates of tablets, pills and 'fruit' drinks are generally lazy people who do no exercise, eat rubbish food and complain a lot, about everything.

So at work snack on fresh fruit - real fruit, that is. It will give you more energy, keep you off the chocolate and give you all the vitamins you need.

Kraft's craftiness

2010-02-18T13:41:00.003Z

It's not always pleasant to say "I told you so". Even when you have told someone so. But I did tell you so. So I'm going to say: "I told you so". Kraft's first act on taking over Cadbury's has been to close down a factory, kick out their workers and relocate somewhere cheaper.

Well I told you so here.

Peter Mandelson has worked himself up into a lather of indignation, which of course is pretty amusing given his inaction and inertia during Kraft's manoeuvring prior to the takeover. At best he paid lip-service to UK jobs and investment. At worst he couldn't have cared less.

So not only will the Cadbury's workers lose their jobs but the Exchequer will lose the tax revenue that comes from manufacturing and business arms being located in the UK. Eventually all of Cadbury's assets, including their staff and their skill sets, will be relocated outside the UK.

The UK benefits enormously from free trade and from having an open market, but that doesn't mean we can't pick and choose. Every other country does, after all. A 'Cadbury's Law' to protect UK companies from takeovers where there is no discernible benefit to the UK economy would be a tricky law to implement, but it is possible, and is a step in the right direction.

Sacking the gold of Goldman Sachs

2010-01-21T17:50:00.005Z

Just heard that Obama is to forbid proprietary trading by American Banks in general - and Goldman Sachs in particular.

At least Obama is taking a firm line with banks, in contrast to the weak and ineffectual action the British Government has taken. The only thing Alistair Darling seems to have done is attempt to impose a 50% tax on bankers' bonuses; this doesn't actually affect the banks themselves, just some of their staff.

Preventing banks from gambling customers' money on hedge funds and the like, and only allowing them to do so with money they have raised themselves, seems like a sensible step. Kudos to Obama for taking on such a powerful lobby as Wall St: possibly the most powerful interest group of them all. It brings back memories of taking on the tobacco industry. I wonder if anyone will ever make a stand against the oil companies or the defence manufacturers.

I heard on Newsnight last night, and in The Evening Standard, an analysis of Obama's (and the Democrats') plunging popularity in the US. It seems that perhaps US voters blame the Democrats for the state of the American economy, rather than George W Bush and the Republicans who were in bed with Wall St for so long.#

Could it also be possible that voters are conflating 2 different economic packages? That is to say the $800bn bailout of American banks that the Bush administration authorised, which is widely disdained, and the similar amount authorised by Obama as an economic stimulus for the economy, which has kept people in their jobs and is more popular.

However the Democrats aren't entirely innocent in all this. It was during the Clinton years that the Glass-Steagall Act was repealed. Clinton allowed something that had until then been forbidden: the coupling of investment banking and lending. Mixing commercial and investment banking, or making banking and broking indistinguishable, was one of the contributory factors in the banking collapse. Northern Rock did the same here, with its absurd mortgage products. And the Democrats allowed it.

Not only that, but the Democrats in Congress pushed to force banks to lend to 'sub-prime' customers, ie folks who couldn't afford it. A free market would have baulked at such a risk, but the Democrats tried to force the issue and the banks gladly accepted, thinking they could repackage the debts and no-one would be any the wiser.

So no-one comes out too well from this sorry story. But Obama is not doing too badly on this one. He has taken on the banking sector. Credit where it's due.

Cadbury's. The crumbliest, flakiest takeover in the world

2010-01-19T22:29:00.002Z

My manager recently brought back some Hershey chocolates from her trip to New York. They were disgusting, really gross. Like chalk. Everyone hated them. Kraft are no better. What chocolates do they make? Does anyone like their stuff? And now Cadbury’s, a great British institution, is to be sold to Kraft.

As a student at Warwick University I remember visiting the Cadbury’s factory near Birmingham. It was fantastic to see a real chocolate factory. I literally was a kid in a sweet shop.

But now bang goes another British company. Not just a company, a British institution. The French protect industries they see as strategically important or culturally sensitive. Not us in Britain. Apparently Lord Mandelson sternly warned the head of Kraft that a hostile bid would meet with resistance – but he didn’t actually block it. He should have. Or if the law prevents such a course of action the law should be amended.

Firstly because American chocolate is rank. It sucks. You need a sick bucket nearby if you decide to eat it. Or a pet dog to feed it to. A much-loved British name, beloved by generations of British kids (and adults) is being sold to a food company that has no interest in the tradition, history and (more than likely) the quality that makes Cadbury’s….Cadbury’s.

But there’s another, less sentimental reason to have opposed this smash-and-grab raid. Everyone is (rightly) upset about bankers’ bonuses, but the purchase of Cadbury’s is far more damaging to the British taxpayer. Jobs will go as Kraft relocates jobs to cheaper locations: that more unemployed, more welfare payments and consequently lower tax revenues. Factories will undoubtedly close, damaging local economies. The income from corporation tax will vanish as the new owners will find ways to ensure the company is officially located for tax purposes in lower-tax countries, or even in tax havens. As senior staff are relocated to the parent company’s favoured locations the Exchequer will lose their tax contributions too.

Tetleys, Range Rover, BAA and now Cadburys. They’re not just British institutions, they are important components of the local and national economies. Sell them off and shareholders may pocket a little extra but really no-one else benefits. Certainly not the employees. The Government has had an open-door policy to takeovers in even the most strategically important areas, like motor manufacturing. What next – BP? British Aerospace? The Government should act more robustly to prevent takeovers where there is not a cast-iron guarantee over jobs and investment. British industry should not be at the mercy of foreign takeovers like this. There’s just no discernible benefit to Britain in this takeover.

The new foreign owners can, and do, close them down or relocate the jobs and investment at a whim. We’re not talking about competing with Chinese TV manufacturers here. These companies are competitive and successful. There’s no need to find foreign buyers who couldn’t care less what they’re taking over: they just see a balance sheet of assets to be shoved around. The mania for sell-offs has to stop somewhere. I just hope the shareholders are courageous and at the last minute reject the offer. It’s still possible, but don’t hold your breath.

Chris Mullin MP to stand down - a shame, we need more like him

2010-01-13T14:21:00.004Z

I read in The Independent today that Chris Mullin MP is to stand down after 23 years in Parliament.

He is best known to the public as the man who secured the release of the Birmingham Six. I attended a talk he gave at Warwick University in 1992 (I think) when I was a student there. I remember him commenting on the aftermath of the Birmingham Six case. This case was, of course, one of the darker episodes in British criminal history. Obviously for the atrocity committed by IRA cowards who threw bombs into pubs. But also for the further outrage that saw followed it: the police 'fitted up' 6 Irishmen that they knew very well to be innocent. They were physically and psychologically abused before confessions were fabricated and they were given life sentences. If the death penalty had been available they would have been hanged.

Mullins knew justice had not been served and began a long and lonely campaign to prove their innocence and secure their release.

He was finally vindicated when the men were released. In doing so he had exposed police corruption and inevitably made enemies. At the Warwick talk he told the audience how he had received middle-class hate mail calling him a 'sancimonious little git'. It made us laugh but it could have been worse; in proving the men's innocence he also tracked down the murderers who had actually carried out the bombings.

The irony was that the police knew the identities of the real bombers, as they did in the case of the Guildford Four. The so-called 'Balcombe Street gang', captured in a stand-off with police in London, were the culprits. But how could they be prosecuted when the police had told the world they already had their bombers? Thus the dead were insulted yet again: innocent men were convicted of their killings and the guilty deliberately allowed to walk free.

Chris Mullin's pursuit of the guilty exonerates him from any claim that his actions were politically motivated. He had no wish to exculpate, or otherwise excuse, the guilty. Personally I always wished that the bent coppers who fitted up the Six had themselves been thrown in the slammer for 25-odd years, just to see justice served. And the IRA creatures who actually carried out the killing given life sentences. But for some unfathomable reason it never happened. I suspect part of the reason was that so many members of the judicial system, the police and the public still believed the Six to be guilty. They are not.

Chris Mullins can be admired for other reasons too. The current vogue is for MPs to be associated with duck ponds, wide-screen TVs and 'flipping' their second homes. The expenses scandal, in other words. As described in today's Independent article, Mullins claimed not so much as a bathplug during the scandal. And amazingly, he still makes do with a black-and-white TV set in his house. You see, he doesn't see the point of anything grander at taxpayers expense. The Independent reports he used to cause trouble by refusing chauffeur-driven cars because he thought them a waste of money. What would we give to have MPs like that filling the Commons?

Ok, he didn't get everything right. In the 1980s he supported unilateral nuclear disarmament, which would have split NATO, left us vulnerable to nuclear blackmail by the Warsaw Pact and probably prolonged the Cold War, rather than ending it as Reagan did. It was, after all, because the arms race bankrupted the Soviet Union and exposed their economic weakness that Gorbachev began his process of Perestroika.

Mullins also supported socialist dinosaur Tony Benn in his campaign for deputy leadership, including his proposal for mass nationalisation. In the Independent Mullins says he baulked at this nutty proposal; not surprisingly, as no nation on earth has sustained economic progress through such a policy.

Still, we can forgive Chris Mullins these minor indiscretions. He did the right thing and is a man of principle and integrity. I was impressed by him when I heard his talk, many years ago, and by his subsequent Newsnight appearances. He changed the way we look at the police, the criminal justice system and arguably the death penalty. This funny-looking little man will be missed by Parliament and by politics in this country.

Want an iPhone? Read this first!

2010-01-13T11:48:00.001Z

This is a great article. I worked for this website -http://www.moneymagpie.com so I can vouch for them.

First it tells you which phones are actually better than the iPhone, feature-for-feature; then it does a true cost comparison; and best of all it shows you a clever way to save money by using a cashback credit card. I will do this myself. My Sony Eriksson Cybershot was good when I got it about 2 years ago but is now a bit of a dinosaur. The models in the article are a few months out-of-date but haven't changed that much.

Check it!

http://www.moneymagpie.com/article/672/dont-buy-an-apple-iphone-until-youve-read-this-article/

Chilcott - the non-event

2010-01-13T11:26:00.001Z

The Chilcott Enquiry has been rumbling on for a while now. I have found it interesting, but not revealing. It has gone over - yet again - material that has been done to death by two earlier enquiries and endless debates. What surprises me is that anyone at all is surprised by any of the revelations that have emerged. I’m surprised by all the surprise.

So it seems that Tony Blair committed to disarming Iraq by any means necessary. If it couldn’t be done peacefully it would be done by force. Further, it seems that he supported Bush’s plan for regime change regardless of the WMD contortions at the UN. The UN was to be used to try and secure a resolution authorising war, but if it wouldn’t acquiesce the invasion was always going to go ahead anyway.

So? Tell us something we don’t know. Of course regime change was the goal. It was obvious to me from 2002.. It was plain as the nose on your face that the Bush administration wanted to remove him, by hook or by crook, and that WMD was used a convenient lever to try and bring world opinion, or at least the UN, onside. Saddam Hussein was a tyrant and his removal has done the whole world a favour. Check the record. He killed enough people to warrant removal.

Yes politicians probably did lie, or at least bend the truth, to accomplish this. You mean this is a surprise to you? I hope not, because if it is you are either very naïve or have been living on the dark side of the moon all your life. Politicians are never transparent.

Iraq is a democracy, all groups and parties are represented there and the country is getting back on its feet. I support Iraqi people and every opinion poll that’s ever been taken there shows that they supported the war and supported their process of elections. Then they wanted an end to occupation, so we left. They now have a democratically elected government and will soon be selling their oil by the oil-tanker load. They will do fine by themselves. In fact in a few years I look forward to visiting their ancient culture as a tourist. I wish them well. The war has done them a favour, and they’re intelligent enough to know it. End of.

Facing down trade union bullies

2009-12-22T09:58:00.003Z

British Airways trolley dollies wanted to go on strike over the 12 days of Xmas. The Supreme Court decided the ballot had 'irregularities' and stopped it. So relief for passengers. I'm pleased for them, and delighted that the would-be strikers have been given a judicial caning. They think their pay isn’t good enough – even though they’re paid more than cabin crew on other airlines, by and large.

Well we’d all like job security and cushy numbers in this day and age, wouldn’t we? BA are fighting for their very survival, cutting costs wherever they can, just like the rest of the airline industry, and indeed like public and private companies all over the world. I work for a charity, and I’ve had a pay freeze (effectively a pay cut). Our pensions are about to be ‘reformed’, which no doubt means reduced. Do I go on strike? Do I hell. I get on with it because we’re in a worldwide recession and I’m lucky to have a job at all. Withholding my labour will have consequences for many disabled and vulnerable children that rely on our organisation. And there are also plenty of people who would do my job for a lot less money, and I well aware of it.

Watching the union UNITE doing their best to destroy their own industry would be hilarious for the irony if it wasn't for the fact that being unemployed is no better for society. Even people trying to commit suicide have the right to life. If you saw someone trying to jump off Beachy Head you'd try and stop them. Especially if they were going to leave their family destitute. But I suppose you can't stop some people.

Maybe UNITE think we’re still living in the 1970s when trade unions could shaft the public whenever they didn’t get what they wanted. So their plan was to inconvenience millions of people around the most important holiday of the year – when people want to see their children and families. Which would probably have been the death knell for BA as no-one would trust them again. The airline industry has never really recovered from 9/11; then we had a credit crunch and now we’re in a recession. The whole industry is on its knees. The arrogance of the unions is staggering.

I’m not against the right to strike. Everyone has the right to withhold their labour. Sometimes you may have to strike to protect yourself and your family. It’s enshrined in British law and (I think) international labour agreements. But this is not a health and safety issue or a protest against exploitation. It’s because cabin crew want better treatment. Don’t we all? I care more about the millions of passengers. Leaving them stranded to further the unions own pay is verging on the immoral.

For some unions, withholding labour has become a tool to brandish over any dispute of any kind, even when the consequences are totally self-defeating. It’s become the weapon of choice. The RMT in London Underground are a perfect example of this.

BA’s management quality seems to be poor. BA has been battered by the recession and by canny competitors like Virgin. It has a £3.7billion hole in its pensions. It is staring into oblivion, like many other famous carriers. We’re all finding it tough in a recession. When BA goes bust and the cabin crew are on the dole then just mayge they will have second thoughts.

BA still retains many of the characteristics of an old nationalised company, despite its private status. Its cabin staff are well paid compared to the industry average. They have nothing to complain about, they have it good. This could be the start of a return of union militancy, which does tend to rear its ugly head during hard economic times. The British economy is being kept afloat by cuts to the pay and benefits of private sector workers. Some public sector workers, by contrast, think they deserve some sort of special status. And of course they have their guaranteed pensions, which the rest of us have to fund. It’s high time to change that.

There are legions of unemployed who would jump at the chance to serve drinks on a plane and travel about the place getting drunk, or whatever. And they’d do it for less money. And they probably wouldn’t strike because they’d be glad they had a job in a recession. There are plenty of Polish girls who would join up I’m sure, and I’d prefer to fly with them anyway. They’re cuter.

Sports Personality : Oxymoron

2009-12-15T12:24:00.001Z

I didn’t watch the absurd ‘Sports Personality of the Year’ award, but I heard that Ryan Giggs won it. Baffling. What did he win it for, exactly?

Not his personality, surely. Sports personality seems like an oxymoron to me. Giggs seems like a fairly nice bloke, without the arrogance of many footballers, but how this sets him apart from all other sportsmen and women I don’t know.

What’s the award for, exactly? It’s obviously not for ‘personality’. Is it for achievement? Improvement? Consistency? Comebacks? A combination of all the above? If so a far more worthy winner would have been Beth Tweddle, the gymnast; or maybe Jenson Button; or David Haye. World champions all. The award is basically a popularity contest. Giggs isn’t even the best footballer in the UK at the moment. He could win an award for longevity and consistency, but the ‘BBC Consistency and Longevity in Sport Award’ doesn’t have the same ring about it.

It does reveal the stranglehold that football has on sport in this country though. And that sport is now more about ‘personalities’ (whatever that means, exactly) than sporting prowess.

Sporting prowess in itself is completely overrated. So what if someone can swing a golf club better than me, or bounce a ball into a hoop more accurately? So what? Sports are arbitrary. There are many sports that don’t make it into the Olympics, that don’t have professional leagues, and yet are no less ‘sports’ in their own right. They roll a large cheese down a hill in the West Country somewhere, and when I was at school we played ‘penny up the wall’. I bet there are urchins in north London and West Country bumpbkins who perform these sports better than Tiger Woods or Ryan Giggs ever would. So what is there to admire about Ryan Giggs, exactly? Just a few hundred years ago football was basically a cheese-rolling contest between mobs of howling villagers. No different. It just got lucky. Why is curling an Olympic sport but cheese-rolling not?

We can admire sporting prowess only as escapism. Forget what really matters in life and admire the dribbling skills Ryan Giggs or the boxing artistry of Floyd Mayweather Jr. Yes, I agree that it is aesthetically pleasing to many and we can admire the skill, technique and dedication it requires. I like watching a great footballer or a boxer in full flow. I’m looking forward to Pacquiao vs Mayweather, and the World Cup next year. But…. if you remember that someone just made up these sports when they were bored, and then made up the rules of these sports off the top of their heads then it becomes a little less impressive.

In the last 30 years sportsmen have become transmogrified into commercial entities and ‘role models’. It inevitably ends in disappointment for all. Sponsors have cottoned on to the relentless human need to be entertained and diverted. The Romans understood this, providing ‘panem et circenses’ for the masses. .Even politicians get in on the act. The public play along and live their lives vicariously through their teams or players, getting swept up in the hysteria and often defining and dividing themselves into tribes based on loyalties to ‘their’ teams.

The BBC Sports Personality of the Year Award is an absurdity that attempts to elevate what is objectively ridiculous to an artificial and arbitrary position of value. When I have watched these awards in the past it’s always struck me how the sportsmen all look faintly embarrassed as they sit there being told how good they are at swimming up and down or running round in circles or whatever. They know that although it might be important to them, for everyone else watching their endeavours are just escapism.

Brazilian police makes ours look like saints

2009-12-11T11:47:00.004Z

I was down at Stockwell tube station last Sunday. Outside I noticed a memorial to Jean Charles de Menezes, the young Brazilian shot dead by SO19 in 2007 in a case of mistaken identity. The police thought he was the terrorist who lived in the same block as Charles. I also read in the London papers that London Underground have agreed to allow a permanent memorial to Charles.

I feel sorry for the poor guy, and his family. The Brazilian expats living in London had a lot to say about the British police in the aftermath. After all, they did screw up their operation and killed an innocent man.

But today I read that Brazilian police murder three people a day, according to a UN report. Kind of puts poor Charles's death into perspective. Our cops are saints compared to Brazil's. If I were a SO19 cop I would have liked to think I wouldn't have made such an error. But I probably would have. When I worked at Scotland Yard as a civilian worker I met some of them and guess what - they're human. I was on the tube when bombers targeted it on 7/7 and I wanted them hunted down and killed, or slung in jail. I still do.

Perhaps Brazilians should campaign against their own trigger-happy cops, many of whom moonlight as members of death squads, instead of worrying about our lot. The police that day thought they were saving lives, and they did their best. Those who got it wrong should be thoroughly investigated, but the imperfect information they had on the day, and the context in which that day's events occurred, are very important. It was a horrible decision, whereas people who blithely criticise it never have to make a harder decision than what to have for their breakfast.

Brazil's image of salsa and football hides a very ugly reality. I would have thought that 48,000 murders a year in Brazil would encourage a sense of perspective.

Socialism vs Capitalism

2009-12-11T10:50:00.002Z

Socialism is based on the belief that one man knows better than one million. Capitalism rests on the principle that a million men know better than one.

In a pure socialist system the state makes decisions for everyone. For this reason it is slow to obtain adequate information on the best way to allocate resources. In a pure capitalist one the many make decisions for the many. It is much faster - and as history has shown, much more efficient - at allocating resources.

We don't, of course, live in a purely capitalist society. We have a 'mixed' economy. Ever developed nation, from China to Sweden, has a mixture of the free-market and state control. The recent credit crunch and banking crisis has swung the pendulum towards state control. The debate is now about what style of capitalism we want. The debate between socialism and capitalism ended with the fall of 'communism' (which really meant state control of economies).

State control failed. It was unable to recover. Capitalism, by contrast, has shown itself to be remarkably resilient; constantly reinventing itself, bouncing back and lifting people out of poverty through wealth creation. Its most severe crises - the Wall Street Crash, Stagflation in the 70s, the dotcom bubble, the credit crunch, the collapse of Lehmans - have not stopped its march. It was capitalism, in one form or another, that lifted millions in Asia out of poverty. It continues to do so in China and India. It is the best economic system for Man: now, and in the future.

I don't believe, however, in complete and total laissez-faire. In any competition, you need an umpire. You need rules. And you need punishment. Imagine a sport where there were no rules. It would still have a Darwinian element to it, but capitalism isn't just about survival of the fittest. It's about confidence. Capitalism needs a neutral umpire to enusre fair play. If all players see, and accept, that there is a level playing field, then they will join in the 'game'. If the system has no means of redress, no fair play, then they won't even participate. They will probably resort to bribery and corruption, as they do in so many parts of sub-saharan Africa. Or Afghanistan. The system is untrustworthy, so why bother participating in it?

I'm not sure Britain's version of capitalism is well run, with the result that the benefits aren't as great as they could be. Take supermarkets: the big players run a cartel, squeezing suppliers and shutting out competition. There's not as much competition as there should be, which is part of the reason we have higher prices than many countries.

In the banking sector, the big players were making so much money, and giving so much to the Exchequer, that the then Chancellor Gordon Brown got into bed with them and wouldn't get out. I remember watching him give speech after speech at the Guildhall, in his white bow tie, praising the City for it's invention and profit-making. He showed no regard whatever for their balance sheets, their liquidity, their debts. His 'tripartite' system of regulation was a sham. Because finance is now borderless, there was no overarching, respected authority to act as capitalism's neutral umpire and just lawgiver. There still isn't, although some world leaders are trying to more closely coordinate their regulation.

Capitalism survives by a process of 'creative destruction': the weak perish, the strong thrive. But we can only benefit from this if the strong are constantly exposed to stiff competition and kicked into line by the umpire, whose loyalties must always lie with the consumer. In the case of the banking crisis, the consumers were ordinary investors and their pensions. Gordon Brown and others forgot - no, disregarded - our interests, so seduced were they by the City's profits.

Capitalism's failures can't hide the fact that it is the only system that has the ability to react quickly enough to consumer needs, which is the foundation of a successful economic system. Socialism cannot, because it is centrally planned. The many make better overall decisions than the few.

Bank bonus tax - why it won't work

2009-12-09T22:15:00.005Z

So the government wants to clobber the greedy bankers, the former 'masters of the universe' who did so much to lead us to the financial Armageddon we're currently facing. It sounds like plain old-fashioned fairness: why should the rest of us struggle to balance our family budgets and keep our jobs while these guys reward themselves for making such a mess?

I appreciate the 'justice' argument. Reward people for success, not failure. We shouldn't be cowed by bankers threats to emigrate to Zurich if they're stopped from gorging themselves on bonuses. After all we own the banks now. It's our money. If they want to emigrate, let them. At least it won't be our money that funds the bonuses. I believe that the City is big enough to steamroller on. I think the message, distorted though it is by political populism, is sound: that bankers have a social function. They're the keepers of our money and they'd better be responsible. If they're not, they're out on their ear, bonus or no bonus.

I think it sounds fair. Especially as Alistair Darling has announced that the 50% levy on bonuses over £25k will fund the extension of a scheme offering 18- to 24 year-olds out of work for six months a job, training or an internship. But the problem is the bonus tax won't work.

It's absurdly easy for banks to duck the tax. They can simply pay the rewards as a salary; or they can give out shares instead of cash bonuses; defer the bonuses until the windfall tax period ends; or make their big earners self-employed. It may even be illegal to tax just one group of workers, though this is yet to be tested.

The City contributes 12% to Britain's entire tax income. Kill the City and you kill the billions they pour into the coffers of UK plc. If the government was serious about imposing discipline on the City there have to be stronger ways of doing it than - let's face it - an envy tax. Yes, the banking sector has sinned and should be given a damn good caning. Regulation should consist of red lines that the banking sector must not cross. Encouraging long-term stability in place of short-term profit would be a start. Separate out the domestic, 'vanilla' banking from the more exotic overseas investments, as Northern Rock failed to do. Insist that banks hold a big chunk of their holdings in cash. In other words take measures that make it illogical, and unprofitable, for banks to reward short-termism with bonuses. That would be more effective than a windfall tax.

It's not even crystal clear what exactly even constitutes a bonus. It's easy for banks to wriggle out of it. Darling's idea relies heavily on the banks themselves co-operating.

Britain is buried beneath a debt mountain and it's so huge that the government is bereft of ideas as to how to solve it. We may never be able to clear it. There are only two ways for a government to raise money: tax and borrowing. As Hamish McRae said in today's Independent: "The place it [the Government] has to go to raise these billions is the City; there is nowhere else. Yet it bad-mouths anything and anyone connected with finance. How bright is that?"

Pre-Budget Report: move over, Darling

2009-12-09T21:34:00.007Z

Catching up on the PBR this evening: via The Evening Standard, BBC News 24 and others. Alistair Darling has the haunted look of a man who doesn't even believe his own propaganda any more. The Commons fell about laughing when he said that Britain was approaching these garganutan problems from....'a position of strength'. You gotta hand it to the guy, he kept a straight face while he said it.

I couldn't help noticing that a lot of the nasty stuff won't take effect until 2011 - ie after the next election. By then either the Conservatives will be lumbered with the consequences of it, or Labour will have squeezed home and the voters won't be able to do much about it.

We are up to our eyeballs in debt. Up to our temples. The upper reaches of our craniums. The levels are astronomical, unseen since people were queueing at the grocers with their ration books in the 1940s. It's the highest level of debt in the OECD. It's not the only problem, of course; output is continuing to fall (by more than the Chancellor predicted, of course) consumer spending is falling and unemployment, which has the greatest time lag in recession, will probably continue to rise. Labour have presided over the kind of mess that only happens, historically, once a century. No amount of spin will let the pirouette out of that.

If Darling was a little more serious about Britain's problems, he could have imposed much tougher treatment, as Ireland has done. They have similar problems, but their solution has been far more draconian: slashing public sector spending across the board, with no 'ring-fencing' of certain budgets and serious tax increases that leave no-one in any doubt that it's serious and the medicine will be very bitter indeed.

The Rules of Work - Socrates' Test of Three

2009-12-09T21:30:00.002Z

As you will probably have noticed from previous ‘Rules of Work’ posts I am not a fan of gossip. Have you noticed how gossip is always about something negative? I mean, how often do you hear people say “Oh my God, have you heard what a successful and happy marriage Brian from accounts has?! Yeah, he’s been totally faithful to his wife!”

Gossip demeans both the target and the perpetrators. If you get a reputation as a gossip you will only draw in people whose energy is as negative as your own, and you will become less trusted by people. For a more elegant dismantling of gossips everywhere, you should remember Socrates’ “Test of Three”.

The philosopher Socrates (469 – 399 BC) was widely lauded for his wisdom. One day the great man came upon an acquaintance who ran up to him, breathless and excited and said “Socrates, do you know what I just heard about one of your students?”

“Wait a moment,” the great man replied. “Before you tell me, I’d like you to pass a little test. It’s called The Test of Three”.

'Test of Three?'
'That's correct,' Socrates continued. 'Before you talk to me about my student, let's take a moment to test what you're going to say.

The first test is Truth. Have you made absolutely sure that what you are about to tell me is true?'
'No,' the man replied, 'actually I just heard about it.'
'All right,' said Socrates. 'So you don't really know if it's true or not. Now let's try the second test, the test of Goodness.

Is what you are about to tell me about my student something good?'
'No, to the contrary...'
'So,' Socrates continued, 'you want to tell me something bad about him even though you're not certain it's true?' The man shrugged, a little embarrassed.

Socrates continued, 'You may still pass though because there is a third test, the filter of Usefulness. Is what you want to tell me about my student going to be useful to me?'
'No, not really.'
'Well,' concluded Socrates, 'if what you want to tell me is neither true nor good nor even useful, why tell it to me at all?'

The man was defeated and ashamed, and said no more.

Socrates was a man of such principles he was prepared to die for them. You shouldn’t die for your job, but you can at least think about Socrates’ Test of Three before you go spreading gossip about your co-workers.

The Rules of Work - when you make a mistake...

2009-12-08T12:00:00.009Z

When you make a mistake for God's sake don't try and cover it up. Ever.

I know everyone does it, but you shouldn't. Because:

(a) You will get found out. YOU WILL.

(b) You will find that you need to cover up your cover-up. And then you will need to cover for that cover-up. And again, and so on, until your story begins to fall apart.

(c) Your initial indiscretion will appear insignificant when set against the discovery by your peers or boss that....you tried to cover your tracks. Your original error will be all but forgotten when all people can think about is your apparent dishonesty.

My uncle, Gilbert, owns an accountancy business in Norway, which was bought by Ernst and Young. In his position as auditor it was his job to uncover coverups and errors that had been hidden. He was good at it. I remember him telling me how he would often come across documents that staff had simply hidden - physically hidden - in drawers, or under large piles of paper. If there was any kind of document that reflected badly on them or could have been used to expose a mistake, they just stashed it under a pile. And hoped it would go away.

So what should you do it you make a mistake? Well, try and correct it if you must. But if it's something that cannot be simply corrected then own up straight away. It's a funny thing: people who confess mistakes openly and apologise unconditionally and unequivocally are highly regarded - because they're seen as honest as trustworthy. More often than not, that outweighs their error.

When I worked at a publishing company in London, Taylor and Francis, there was a senior guy, the Group Operations Director, called Jeff. Once I remember he made what could only be described as a cockup. I can't remember exactly what it was, I think it was something to do with an upgrade of IT infrastructure. Anyway the next day an email from him went round to all staff, explaining what had happened, apologising and making clear that he was to blame and no-one else. Even though there were probably many in the IT department who were to blame.

Within a day everyone in the company was saying what a great guy Jeff was for 'fessing up like that, for taking responsibility, for not trying to hide the mistake or palm off the blame onto his underlings. He basically became admired. I remember thinking to myself at the time: Jeff got more kudos for admitting the mistake completely and unequivocally than he would ever have got if the system had actually been implemented smoothly and faultlessly. His admission of guilt seemed to have served him better than blowing his own trumpet at any success ever would have.

Senior managers are often practitioners of the hide-the-error tactic. Particularly when it comes to what is commonly known as 'cooking the books'. Remember Nick Leeson, the British, London-based trader who brought down Barings Bank? When he made a loss on his trades, instead of dealing with it transparently, or asking for help, he decided to hide the losses in a secret account he named '88888'. He believed he would make up the losses, so who needed to know? Sure, his bosses were at fault for not monitoring their traders, but he tried to hide his errors. He never made up the loss and became trapped in an ever-increasing vortex of losses and deception. Remember point (b) above: if you lie once, you will need to lie again to cover it.

Eventually his losses in account 88888 were so enormous that Barings collapsed and Leeson went to jail. He is now on the syllabus of every economics degree course in the world.

So remember Nick Leeson, Jeff and uncle Gilbert. If you make a mistake, just say so. Everyone makes mistakes. Even me.

The Rules of Work - get to your desk early

2009-12-06T22:21:00.006Z

This is a crucial rule: get to work early. No matter what it takes, be early.

Why? Well it will be a less stressful start to your day for starters. There's nothing worse than realising you're running late, then trying to skid your way through traffic, or push past people on the train. I guarantee that once you're running late, everything will seem to go against you: the trains will go extra slowly, people will seem to deliberately get in your way, roadworks will appear miraculously in front of you. Isn't it great?

If you get to your desk at 8.45 when your day starts at 9.00 then you have a lesiurely 15 minutes to take off your coat, make a cup of coffee, log onto your PC. There's no rush. If you happen to have a heavy workload ahead of you then your morale will improve because you've started on a positive note.

You will get a reputation as someone who is hard-working and conscientious too, which won't do your career any harm. Hey, I'm sure you're a grafter anyway, but this extra brownie point won't hurt, will it? And, heaven forbid, if you like to chit-chat and gossip all day, then being the first (or one of the first) to the office each day gives you a little more leeway. If the worst comes to the worst and you find yourself in hot water with the powers that be at work, your hard-working reputation will stack some cards in your favour. It's an awful lot of pluses for doing very little really. Just get in early. It's not so hard!

But even if you don't want to sip coffee in the morning an early start will give you a chance to think and mentally prepare for the day. Your important meeting, your work relationships, any difficult or challenging task that requires you to focus but also relax.

The important thing is that getting in 10 minutes or so before your working day begins should be a habit. If it's a habit, it will become easy. A post coming soon will talk about how to achieve this.
Good luck. And don't be late!

The Rules of Work - keep your counsel

2009-12-06T22:09:00.006Z

When at work, it's often wise to keep you counsel. Or to put it another way, keep your mouth shut.

I don't mean not speaking up when the situation demands it; keeping quiet when you're meant to be presenting to the Board is not the best idea.

What I mean is that making unguarded personal criticism of others, or 'letting off steam', can often backfire. If you think someone is rude, incompetent, lazy or awful in some other way: keep it to yourself. Be very careful what you say, and to whom. You might feel you are in trusted company - with a colleague you have known for years, and who has shared their negative impressions of people with you too. You might think your comments will go no further. But there's a problem.

First, your colleague will tell someone. When they in turn tell someone else, your name will come up. Maybe not maliciously, but suddenly you're linked to potentially harmfull rumours, or worse: it could be defamatory, offensive or even illegal. Ever heard of Chinese whispers?

There are a number of ways to deal with invitations to join in with general badmouthing, even if you think it is justified.

1. Use reported quotes. "Well, some people might think...." It sounds too obvious, but it works.

2. Be non-commital. "Hmmm". "Really?". "I see". "Ok, I didn't know that". You acknowledge what's being said but resolutely refuse to join in. This is the best strategy.

Gossip diminishes the perpetrators as well as the target. Think about it: if you have a reputation as a gossip, will anyone want to trust you? Of course not.

Nor do I mean refusing to converse with your colleagues - until recently I line-managed an Australian girl, Emma, who was so quiet it verged on the rude. When asked how her weekend was she would give a straight answer - but not reciprocate the question. When she left the team organised a leaving lunch for her; but even at her leaving 'do' she refused to engage verbally with any of the team! Everyone was left thinking she was just weird. I think, perhaps without realising it, she was just rude.

Scotland the Knave

2009-12-02T14:40:00.003Z

I missed St. Andrew’s Day this year. As a St. Andrew’s Day present England could grant Scotland full independence from the United Kingdom. Not for the benefit of the Scots, but the English.

Scotland has sponged off the English for 302 years. When you do the maths, the benefit is almost entirely one-way: from the English, particularly those in the southern half of the country, to Scotland.

It all boils down to the pernicious Barnett Formula. This is the calculation that determines the amount that each region of the UK receives from Westminster. It was drawn up in 1978, under conditions of such secrecy that even MPs were not even told of its existence until it had been in operation for 2 years.

According to The Scotsman Newspaper, the formula dictates that for every pound the UK government distributes for spending around the country, 85 pence goes to England, 10 pence goes to Scotland and 5 percent to Wales. With five million people, Scotland now has 8.3 per cent of the UK population.

A 2008 report written by a former Treasury economist for the Taxpayers' Alliance (TPA) reveals that since 1985/86, public spending in Scotland has been £102 billion higher than if the country was funded at English levels. Government spending on public services in England was £7,535 per person in 2007-08. In Scotland it was £1,644 higher.

Scotland has free services not available in England, like NHS hospital parking, some personal care for the elderly and university courses without up-front fees. This is funded disporportionately by English taxpayers.

It wouldn’t be a problem if all UK taxpayers had the same political representation. After all, Scotland has historically had some greater needs than the rest of the UK, in particular in areas such as housing and healthcare. But Scottish MPs can vote on matters relating exclusively to England, at Westminster, whereas English MPs are excluded from voting on purely Scottish matters as they don’t sit in the Scottish parliament. This refers to ‘The West Lothian Question’ and it has never been satisfactorily answered.

So English taxpayers fund Scotland’s services. As Boris Johnson rightly said, “we give Scotland our money, they give us their Prime Ministers”. He could have added that English taxpayers have also funded the bailout of those Scottish banks, whose incompetence did so much damage to the whole British financial system.

The Scottish Nationalists, narrow-minded as always, claim Scotland would thrive as an independent country. Without England’s billions I doubt it. They point to Ireland’s success as a ‘Celtic Tiger’, ignoring the fact that Ireland’s growth was funded by….handouts and investment from the EU. In today’s climate that is unlikely to come Scotland’s way. In today’s economy, being a small fish is hazardous. Just ask Iceland.

Scottish Nationalists also maintain the fantasy that Scotland’s North Sea oil funds England. But the Taxpayer’s Alliance report exposes this nonsense. Even if Scotland were able to claim the majority of revenue from the North Sea, they calculated, Scotland would only have made a net contribution to the Treasury in five of the last 23 years. "Even taking account of oil, the underlying issue of English taxpayers funding premium public services in Scotland remains, and will become more serious in years to come," said the report’s author, John Denham.

It would be interesting if a study could be carried out to calculate, or at least estimate, the total financial flows from Scotland to England and vice versa since 1707 in total. A gargantuan task for sure, having to take into account tax revenues from all sorts of things, but a look at 18th and 19th century history makes it pretty obvious that Scotland was dragged into industrialisation and development by England.

Scottish nationalism is, of course, rooted in rabid xenophobia and prejudice. No nationalist movement can survive without the mythology of ‘oppression’. It needs ‘the other’ as an object of discontent, to justify its existence and foster a sense of grievance. In Alex Salmond’s case, it’s the English. The high ground of victimhood looks ridiculous though when all the facts point to the economic exploitation being the other way around.

Removed from its English host, an independent Scotland would act like any parasite that has been hacked off – it would wither. They would be reduced to selling haggis and whisky – putrid food and toxic drink. Some economy. It wouldn’t be England’s problem though. Scotland might even become a pool of cheap labour for England, as Mexico has been for the United States. They could forget about their free NHS parking as well, they wouldn’t have the English subsidy to fund it any more.

The Act of Union in 1707 was an act of political skulduggery, the result of economic and military pressure on Scotland by England. There was no referendum in 1707, but if there were to be a referendum now, all the signs are that Scots would vote to stay in the Union. I wonder why? Nothing to do with all the English money, is it? But there’s no reason to wait for them to make a decision. Just expel Scotland from the Union and watch them sink. Och aye.

Afghanistan and realpolitik

2009-12-02T11:56:00.001Z

When you’re wounded and left on Afghanistan’s plains
And the women come out to cut up what remains
Just roll to your rifle and blow out your brains
And go to your gawd like a soldier

Thus spoke Rudyard Kipling about Afghanistan. The British are having a tough time over there once again, and it’s not just because they don’t have enough choppers or the right kind of body armour. The Americans seem not have fared much better and the other NATO contingents stay out of harm’s way as much as possible. Maybe they’ve seen the writing on the wall.

Obama has announced a troop surge. In a way he didn’t have a choice. During his presidential campaign he said that Afghanistan was a war of necessity, whereas Iraq was a war of choice. He became trapped by his own words.

The voices calling for complete and immediate withdrawal of NATO forces (or at least British ones, regardless) are growing louder. The argument comprises many of the following: we cannot ‘win’; we have failed to subdue the Taliban; Afghanistan is the graveyard of empires; our very presence is the source of the conflict; we are seen as invaders/imperialists; the 2001 invasion was unjustified in the first place; the campaign is immoral; it’s not worth the price in lives and money; it’s a quagmire; he Afghan government we are propping up is corrupt; and that the best thing for everyone will be to get out.

Before commenting I should spell out the reality that I have never been to Afghanistan. Nor am I an expert on the country. Neither, I suspect, are 99% of all commentators. Being an armchair strategist (or general) always carries the risk of wishful thinking, naivety, ignorance and myopia. No matter how I try, I cannot see things from the point of view of an Afghan – because I’m not one! But unlike some commentators, I don’t have an agenda.

First, a statement of some principles. I am in favour of liberal interventionist policies, but only when the overall strategy into which they fit is logical, the outcomes defined and achievable and the strategy into which they fit is governed by old-fashioned realpolitik. This is for the simple reason that if these conditions aren’t met, the mission to save the starving or the downtrodden will fail.

The invasion of Afghanistan, although not authorised by the UN, seems to me to have been justified because there was no doubt at all that the government of Afghanistan – effectively the Taliban – had indeed harboured people who proclaimed themselves to be members of Al-Q’aida. Now

I think we should be in that country doing nation-building but only if we are prepared to stay for 30 years and see it through. . The problem with these 'failed' states is they never leave you alone, even if you leave them alone - they export their problems, failings, ideologies and violence. It all depends on America anyway - if they don't want to do it, it's academic. The real reason Britain is there is because we're embarrassed by our relationship with the US and feel we have to pull our weight to justify our relationship with them. It's sad really. But given that the US military is the only organisation capable of undertaking, or at least leading, this task, we should judge the case for intervention on is own merits.

I think there's a middle ground - we could keep an eye on the country and prop up a friendly government without being overly-ambitious and unrealistic and trying to turn it into a model democracy like Sweden, or even Turkey. The country is too backward and under-developed socially, politically, economically to achieve that. The population has loyalties to tribes and ethnic groupings, not central Government. The government itself is corrupt and trying to change that is like trying to turn round an oil tanker. So why try and change that in such a short timescale? No-one thinks Afghanistan is a 'training camp' (whatever that means) for terrorists now. So we've accomplished our immediate aims. Just let them get on with it in their own way, intervene when necessary, provide education and aid and focus on narrow security objectives and promoting good governance. Seems to me we're trying to do way too much with far too little. And other NATO countries don't want to get involved, which is making it harder. And the Afghan locals are reliant on money from opium to survive so they'll never play along with our strategy of destroying their crops.

A better strategy would be to decriminalise opium and heroin in this country and buy up Afghanistan's entire crop. Use it to produce cheap pharmaceuticals for us. In Afghanistan the Taliban would lose a large slab of their income. Their farmers would want to work with us. Over here the illegal heroin trade would collapse. Addicts wouldn't need to steal and rob, they could go to NHS centres for fixes and alternatives and treatment. We did that in this country prior to 1971 and it worked very well.

You can't persuade a country to go from burquas to miniskirts overnight. We need a bit of old-fashioned 'realpolitik' over there - making alliances of convenience, safeguarding our own interests and respecting other countries' traditions and customs. Not nation-building - that feels (to them) like old-fashioned imperialism. You can't just say: "we'll only deal with people who are nice". None of the power-brokers in Af'stan are nice. They're all either venal, corrupt, violent, barbaric or psychopathic. The best we can do is push support for those leaders in Afghanistan who are – by the standards of their own country – honest, transparent, respect human rights and don’t subscribe to extreme ideology.

Swiss to ban minarets

2009-11-29T20:06:00.005Z

I have just heard on "Euronews" - one of Virgin cable tv's news channels - that the Swiss public have voted in a referendum to ban minarets. 57% were in favour of it apparently, which by referendum standards is pretty solid.

Come on, guys. Just what are you scared of? Minarets are hardly going to kill you, are they? After all, you have 4 languages and their practitioners seem to rub along fine. Say....it's not prejudice against muslims, is it? Hmm. Here's me thinking they were harmless, if slightly strange people who were into cheese and cuckoo clocks. And taking dead Jews' money. Sorry, didn't mean that last one. Maybe it's having gone 500 years without a war that's made them so jumpy. And the lack of battle experience has left them feeling vulnerable. Reminds me of that Seinfeld joke:

"Ever see that little Swiss Army knife they have to fight with? Not much of a weapon there. Corkscrews, Bottle openers. 'Come on, buddy, let's go. You get past me, the guy in back of me, he's got a spoon. Back off. I've got the toe clippers right here.'”

We don't need no (State in our) education

2009-11-29T19:08:00.005Z

OFSTED reported last week that one in three British state schools is 'inadequate'. In terms of apsiration, this statement doesn't exactly reach for the stars. 'Inadequate'? They have fallen short, not of 'excellence' but of 'adequacy'. I often hear that children should not be made to feel inadequate. But there's really no need. According to OFSTED the state system is making a pretty good fist of it.

If it were 1 in 100, 1 in 50 or even 1 in 10, parents might be forgiven for thinking that state education was worth chancing their arm with. But if you have a 1 in 3 chance of condemning your child to claw their way through a system that was 'inadequate', well - you wouldn't be surprised if parents voted with their feet.

Problem is, they can't really. Opting out of state education is expensive. But need it be?

We would do better to look at Sweden, where the government has trialled 'vouchers' for education. Parents are given the cash, they decide what to do with it; they can go public, or they can try private. The Conservatives flirted with such an idea, but I'm not sure what their policy on it now is.

Howls of derision always arise from teaching unions, of course, who decry any attempt to 'privatise' education. Translation: they don't want parents to choose where to send their child. They (and the British left) want to keep children in their place - in the arms of the state. Great for the 2 out of 3 that, presumably, have education that is 'adequate' or better. Not so rosy for the 33.3% who are left. Opponents of parental choice seem to have co-opted the Jesuits' maxim: "Give me the child and I will show you the man". I went to a Jesuit (state) school, so I know a thing or two about that ;)

Labour have had 12 years to make good on their promise of "education, education and education". They have failed. Millions of school leavers will enter the job market with inadequate skills. Why? Government sets the policy, teachers implement it. At least 1 out of these is to blame. It's no pretty obvious that Government diktats have a lot to do with it: what should be taught, when, and to meet which politically-motivated target. Exam grades at GCSE and A Level keep going relentlessly upwards, while employers, universities and businesses keep complaining about illiterate and inumerate 18 year-olds. It's partly because grade inflation is the result of government targets. Much easier to give examinees an easy ride through coursework, resits and guided questions than to really raise standards.

Not that British teaching philosophy has helped. In many countries, like Slovakia you need a masters degree to teach languages or science; not here. In Japan being a physics teacher requires many years experience in industry; here just a bachelors degree and a teaching qualification will do it. Talk about poverty of aspiration.

The Rules of Work - comebacks to workplace bullies

2009-11-27T11:37:00.006Z

Most people you meet at work are nice. But a minority aren't. They're bullies. They can fall into many categories, depending on the nature of their bullying.

I’m not talking about good-natured teasing from your colleagues. Nor about people who are simply rude.

The thing I’m talking about is those times when you might find yourself on the receiving end of childish, idiotic comments, or ridicule or mockery, not designed to be good humoured, but to belittle you. For example:

"You didn't do that very well, did you?"
"Do you always make such a mess?"
"Did you go to school?"
"Did you get changed in the dark this morning?"

Why do some people say these things? It stems from low self-esteem, which people compensate for by trying to lower the status of others or projecting an image as a dominant character who can shove others around. Anyway, here’s what you should do.

1. Don’t be submissive. Submission signifies weakness, and only those perceived as weak are ‘picked on’. True on David Attenborough’s nature programmes, true in the office. So don’t look down, instead keep steady eye contact. Don’t flinch, and it’s better if you don’t blink either. No nervous laughter. If you’re standing, stand up tall, straight, face-on. If you are close to the guy, suddenly come closer. It will unnerve them.

2. Don’t overreact, show anger or emotion. Bullies want a reaction, they are stumped when they don’t get one. Don’t be rude – no swearing etc. Be icy calm.

3. Some people advocate dignified silence. This may work in some contexts but I don’t generally agree. You can’t be a punchbag. Show you’re not to be messed with and that you don’t take crap lying down. The best reaction is to act unemotional and unimpressed. But say something back.

I think that a silent response can communicate disdain, but may also make you look like a ‘soft touch’. You should communicate disdain, mixed with pity, and laced with a dose of sarcasm.

Some comebacks:

You still here?
That’s…almost funny.
Nice try.
Don’t give up the day job.
Here we go….mastermind.
You used to be funny.
You should be a comedian. Just not yet.
Do you want a round of applause?

4. Just say one of these. Remember it’s how you say it that counts. Calm, slow, unwavering and authoritative. Don’t rush or let your voice become too high-pitched or breathless, as this communicates weakness. Have a slightly dismissive tone of voice, slightly sarcastic.

5. If you can’t think of anything to say, or the situation doesn’t really warrant a sharp verbal risposte, then you can remain silent – but it is your body language that will be your response. Be silent and just stare back with confidence. This is the position that says, "that comeback doesn't even deserve an acknowledgment."

The Rules of Work - avoiding embassassing faux pas

2009-11-23T12:05:00.004Z

You know the scene. Man meets female colleague by the water cooler. Man notices larger-than-usual tummy on colleague. Man congratulations colleague on impending birth of her child and asks when the baby is due and what food cravings is she having. Compounding his blunders he asks if she’s thought of a name for her child and is having a home birth, perhaps?

Colleague tells man she is actually not pregnant. It turns out she has just been overdoing it on the chocolate digestives and is wearing a slightly more figure-hugging dress than usual. Man is now stuck in a pit of horrendous embarrassment, from which there is no easy escape-route. As an added bonus, on some occasions the man will desperately try and extricate himself from the cavernous hole into which he has dug himself by telling his colleague she looks 'healthy'. Which can only be interpreted as telling her she looks fat, Nice.

Making assumptions about your colleagues, even if done innocently and with the best of intentions, can often lead to embarrassing situations. Offering congratulations on phantom pregnancies are one such pitfall. Others include misjudging someone’s age, qualifications, marital status, or family arrangements.

In the communal kitchen at work I witnessed a collague of mine, a lady of about 50, being asked buntly if she was pregnant. Incredible but true. She said ‘no’ and the lady who asked her had to apologise profusely. Luckily no offence was taken! I have to admit I walked off because otherwise I would have burst out laughing.

A good way to avoid this, if for instance you think someone is pregnant, or has bought a new house, or has just been to their daughter’s graduation, is the gambit: “So what’s new with you then?”

It opens up the conversation without creating too much expectation or piling on too much pressure. If they are pregnant they may tell you. If they’re not they obviously won’t. Or if they are pregnant but don’t actually want to tell you, you have respected that right. Similarly their daughter, whom you knew 6 months ago was at university, may have dropped out of her course. Asking "what’s new?" gives your colleague the right to tell you or keep quiet about this, without being asked about a graduation that never happened.

If you want to find out something about someone’s life after work, judge first of all how well you know the person. What kind of relationship do you have with them? If you only know them in a professional capacity, try the “what’s new with you” or “how was your weekend?” opener. Wait and see how much they open up.

Warning: if they often talk about their family it doesn’t mean you can steam straight in there and ask whether their child is eating solids yet. A safer option is “how are the family?” If you know they are in a relationship and you’re dying to know whether they’re engaged yet, first consider whether they have spoken to you about it. If they have you can say “how’s it going with Jennifer?” or whatever his/her name is. But consider this: if they haven’t actually told you about their relationship, but you’ve heard it on the office grapevine, or from other colleagues, should you be asking at all?

Underlying all this is the pernicious effects of gossip and noseyness, which we all succumb to now and again but which we should all strive to avoid. Why? Because of the negative energy it generates. Gossiping reduces the value of people, both the target and the perpetrators. It reduces our value as human beings and leaves us as objects tossed around at the whim of others. Remember the law of karma: what goes around, comes around.

Thierry Henry’s handball and the degradation of sport

2009-11-22T20:22:00.005Z

Thierry Henry was caught in slow-mo reply handling the ball (twice) in a crucial game against Ireland last week, leading directly to France’s winning goal and eliminating Ireland from the World Cup Finals in South Africa next year. A storm of invective has poured down on Henry’s head, but virtually all the actors in this saga have diminished themselves and international sport is – once again – exposed as a degrading spectacle that has less to do with heroic endeavour and more to do with gamesmanship, hypocrisy and chauvinism.

Henry first. He cheated, no two ways about it. His first touch may have been accidental, his second most certainly was not. His actions are fractionally mitigated by the fact it happened in the heat of the moment, rather than in the premeditated fashion of, say, taking illegal performance-enhancing drugs. But cheat he did.

His dishonesty was joined by a lack of moral courage when, realising that TV cameras had caught is malfeasance in every excruciating detail, he issued a highly qualified apology in which he appeared to blame…the referee. Maybe the referee was incompetent, but Henry acted to willingly deceive him. Still it continued: when the storm of controversy really exploded, he added disingenuousness to his list of qualities: by calling for a replay after FIFA had ruled one out. Brave? Mais non, mon ami.

For some reason Irish politicians got involved and ranted about injustices towards smaller countries. You can bet that Irish politicians care not one jot for the sport of football, or the fans, but politicians are adept at riding waves of national hysteria to further their own advancement, and so it was here.

For many Irish, this has been a chance to wallow in victim status, to dredge up past injustices throughout their history and to draw a parallel with a football match. It’s pathetic – but not entirely surprising. This is international sport, after all. If war is the continuation of politics by other means, then sport (or rather international sporting competitions) are the continuation of war by other means.

Of course, Ireland’s complaints reek of hypocrisy. Maybe the replay principle could be applied consistently, because if it were, it might be to Ireland’s disadvantage. Georgia were victims of a penalty injustice on the 11th February which Ireland gladly accepted; and Montenegro would probably like a replay for the 0-0 game on the 14th of October when Irish player Paul McShane handled the ball in the area and didn’t tell the ref it was a penalty. Fair play? Ireland are no saints.

Remember when England were eliminated from the 1986 World Cup by Maradona’s “Hand of God”? England were aggrieved but didn’t ask for a replay. No formal complaint was made, they just got on with it. At the time FIFA praised England for the manner in which they accepted their defeat. The score should have been 1-1 but England just accepted it. Ireland would do well to conduct themselves with dignity instead of wallowing in self-pity and demanding a replay. I’m sure most Irish people aren’t like that, but this is what happens when sport becomes a metaphor for national honour, or national victimhood. It’s a shame that some England fans still can’t let the 1986 handball go and still dredge it up, but that’s what happens when sport is so tightly woven with nationality. Most England fans I meet now, however, acknowledge that Maradona’s skill as a footballer outweighs the injustice of that incident. It will be interesting to see whether Ireland fans are still banging the ‘injustice’ drum 25 years later.

It's not just Henry, or the French (or the Argentinians). Cheating, gamesmanship and the absence of honour and integrity now seemed to be an ingrained part of just about every sporting event, across many cultures. Even the Irish players seemed to accept Henry’s cheating. Listen to what Damian Duff had to say: “If it was down the other end and it was going out of play, I’d have chanced my arm. You can’t blame him. He’s a clever player but you expect the ref to see it, it was so blatant.” There you have it. In a way you have to admire Duff’s honesty. He would gladly cheat, he’s says, so he politely declines to condemn Henry. Amazing.

In reality is a storm in a teacup. Who cares who won, and how, and whether it was by means fair or foul? But as I argued in my piece on ‘abolish international sport’, where ‘national’ teams are involved, chauvinism and grandstanding are never far behind.

If Henry had taken the unlikely (perhaps very unlikely) action and stopped play, admitting his foul, he would have been lauded as a true sporting great and a role model, even if his team had lost. His honour would have been salvaged. But here’s the thing about cheating: the inescapable law of karma. What goes around comes around. It always does. It has to. So now Henry will be forever vilified as a cheat, his reputation lies in tatters, his sponsorship deals on the line, his very name synonymous with duplicity. It won’t stop there. His children will read about their father’s dishonour. They too will have to live with it. What an awful fate, all for one lousy goal.

It’s horribly unfair to Henry, of course – because as Damian Duff so shamefacedly explained, they all do it; they just hope they get away with it. But Henry also has to accept that the higher the stakes, and the higher your profile, the greater the scrutiny.

Sport should be about the human spirit, endeavour, training, determination and achievement. But it has become a win-at-all costs gladiatorial battle, inflamed by international contests with their national anthems and flags, and egged on by huge salaries and corporate deals. In the grand scheme of life it is not as important as the many pressing international issues of the day. It can unite, and entertain, but the pressure to be ‘winners’ means that something far more important than winning has been lost: integrity. Without it, sportsmen (and women) are nothing.

From doping in the Tour de France, to fake blood injuries in rugby, from diving footballers to ball-tamperers in cricket, sport has become demeaned. Players are so desperate to win that they will seek unfair advantage by whatever means they can. In athletics I have heard the argument that all sprinters know the other guys take drugs, so they feel if they don’t do the same then they are being cheated. I never used to understand what teachers used to say about cheating: “You’re only cheating yourself”. But now I do: if you have a gold medal round your neck, but you broke the rules to get it, then you know in your heart that you are not really a champion. You have to lie to your children when they ask you how you won it. What a burden.

Some people say that why not just abolish testing and let athletes take whatever drugs they like. It would be the death of sport because the competition would be between rival laboratories and doctors, not athletes.

In the world of mixed martial arts contests, a fighter was recently disqualified for taking steroids. Bas Rutten, a veteran fighter, said that the individual concerned wasn’t really a mixed martial artist because he didn’t have enough confidence in himself, his abilities and his training – he was so unsure of himself that he felt the need to add a bit more to his engine by taking drugs. It’s true. You could say the same about cheating footballers. They are not real sportsmen.

Magnanimous in victory, generous in defeat. It marks a higher calibre of person. Some players are only gracious when they’re winning: take Serena Williams, for example, and her foul-mouthed outburst. Some players’ skills are nullified by their violence, like Roy Keane, who is a thug and a coward. Other cowards, like Sir Alex Ferguson, look for excuses to explain away defeats. We need sportsmanship, not gamesmanship. Money and international contests have helped demean sport.

Competitive sport should be encouraged. It is, after all, a form of entertainment. But ‘international’ events should be abolished and the strictest rules imaginable should be introduced to stamp out cheating and its close cousin, gamesmanship. But it needs to go deeper than that. Children across the world should be taught that honour and integrity are the hallmarks of a great human being, which is so much more important than being a winning sportsman. And that while one should strive to win, being a good loser is a lot harder than being a good winner.

The Rules of Work - how to stop procrastinating

2009-11-18T15:22:00.002Z

Procrastination. It's the bane of many people's working lives. Some people procrastinate because they don't know where to start on a task, some because they lack the confidence to do it, some because they are perfectionists and some because they just can't face it. I thought I'd share some of the things I've found helpful in overcoming procrastination.

Make an immediate start – even a ‘microstart’ - to every job you are given. Especially the rotten ones. Don't wait - do it straight away. Before you have time to over-think what you're doing or to rationalise yourself out of it.

It actually doesn't really matter what this 'start' to the work is; it could be a sketch, a memo, a few bullet points, a garbled document that you keep for yourself. You can delete it later - it doesn't matter, just do something right away.

Making a tiny start to something immediately will have a good psychological effect on you – boosting your confidence and self-esteem, informing your subconscious that you can actually do this damn piece of work, that it’s not impossible and it is do-able.

On the other hand if you don’t touch your unpleasant piece of work for ages it will become more repellent and unconquerable in your mind, creating a vicious circle of procrastination.

Try that for starters!

Abolish international sport

2009-11-16T14:08:00.003Z

It's a funny thing about sport, but when teams suddenly become countries: "Germany", "France", etc - the contest suddenly becomes less about sport and more about national pride. When England beat Australia to win the Ashes the entire country basked in the glory. Even though the baskers themselves couldn't throw a ball for toffee and have contributed exactly nothing to "their" team's success.

So here's my proposal. All 'international' sporting events should be abolished. Not sporting events themselves; just that athletes should compete as individuals at the Olympics and at every other sport, and that the England football, rugby etc teams be abolished and players play for any team they want to - clubs, associations etc.

The reasoning being firstly : that international sport divides rather than unites; that it promotes nationalism, even racism, cements differences and encourages jingoism and xenophobia. It is, as Orwell said, "war minus the shooting". Hardly what the world needs. Secondly: that in a sporting context 'nationality' is actually pretty meaningless. Andy Murray was born in Scotland but trained and learnt his skills in Spain. So he actually owes more to Spain than Scotland. So shouldn't he really represent Spain, if anyone? After all we have no control over where we were born. It just depends on where your mother went into labour. I could have been born in France is mum had delivered early. So can I play for France? Mum was born in Tanzania, so I can play for them too? It's meaningless. Most people have 'foreign' blood in them.

International sport equates sporting prowess with nationhood, even ethnicity. And if American athletes win say 10 golds, how does that mean 'America' has won 10 golds? It doesn't. It just means that those individuals have won them. Nothing at all to do with insurance salesmen in Texas or computer programmers in San Francisco. They haven't done anything. This false sense of 'belonging', of somehow partaking in the success of others, living your dreams and fantasies vicariously through the success of others who just happen to share your passport is simply nonsense. Do you know an olympic gold medallist? Have you ever met one? Have you personally helped him/her to perfect the techniques that enabled them to win gold? Of course not. So you can claim no credit for their success. The feelgood factor you get from their success in competing for the team of the country you live in is illusory.

A wiser man than me, Professor Noam Chomsky of MIT, renowned linguist, author and campaigner said this about sporting loyalties during a live interview in front of an audience:

"You know, I remember in high school, already I was pretty old. I suddenly asked myself at one point, why do I care if my high school team wins the football game? [laughter] I mean, I don't know anybody on the team, you know? [audience roars] I mean, they have nothing to do with me, I mean, why I am cheering for my team? It doesn't mean any -- it doesn't make sense. But the point is, it does make sense: it's a way of building up irrational attitudes of submission to authority, and group cohesion behind leadership elements -- in fact, it's training in irrational jingoism. That's also a feature of competitive sports. I think if you look closely at these things, I think, typically, they do have functions, and that's why energy is devoted to supporting them and creating a basis for them and advertisers are willing to pay for them and so on."

Professor Chomsky's slant is that obsessing about sport distracts the masses from the important things in life, like politics. But extrapolate his point further to people's association of entire countries or races with sporting contests . It's not a big stretch.

Take English football. Many people like watching football. They like to see the skill of the players and the teams. But a curious thing: they think that a team is equivalent to themselves. They think that they are a team. So they say: "We won on Saturday"; "we beat you"; "we're better than you" etc. It makes me laugh. "We"? "We"? Since when do you play for Chelsea? Are you a goalkeeper or something? It used to be the case that teams were composed of players who were all local lads from the area. Those days are long gone - now football is in the hands of huge and powerful corporate giants, media companies and billionaires. I'm looking forward to laughing my socks off when the day comes that rival teams are owned by companies that are in partnership with each other, or even the same company. Just to see the bafflement of the 'fans' who believe that 'their' team is apart from, and distinct from, all the others.

On a local level sporting loyalties are laughable. Irrational. An imagined and entirely concocted 'rivalry' that sweeps people along into believing that they have 'enemies'. Two guys could pass each other in the street perfectly peaceably. But if the next day they are wearing colours from opposing teams they suddenly become rivals. Amazing.

On an international scale it is even more absurd. If sport is truly about aesthetics, admiring the strength, speed, technique, determination and willpower of the competitors, then grouping teams of individuals by country should be abolished. Individuals should compete as individuals, teams merely as colleagues. In many sports the players in the same teams don't even have the same nationality, they only qualify through ancestry, so it's meaningless anyway. International sport encourages the most ugly kind of jingoism and nationalism, often with a healthy dose of racism thrown in for good measure.

It could be too ambitious an aim. Perhaps the desperate urge to have a sense of belonging, the divisiveness of 'them' and 'us' is too strongly ingrained in human nature to achieve this. But we could make a start by abolishing the contemptible 'league table' of medals that 'countries' win at the Olympics. I don't care that the UK did so well, beating France, Australia etc. It wasn't our country anyway, just a miniscule proportion of people who hold the nationality and outperfomed another tiny number of individuals, none of whom have any affinity whatsoever with the watching viewers.

Even the 'positive' aspects of international competition - camaraderie, national hysteria, strangers kissing each other in the street - is all based on 'beating' someone, on being 'better' than someone and on being, in some way, superior. I'm not against competition, I think it's healthy. I'm against it being based on nationhood. The world would be a much better place without it.

Question Time - Nick Griffin

2009-11-03T10:09:00.002Z

Who’s afraid of Nick Griffin? Lots of people, it seems. After Thursday night’s performance on Question Time, maybe they shouldn’t be. No-one comes out well from the BNP/Question Time debacle – not Nick Griffin, not the BBC, the audience, panellists or protestors.

I missed the show but caught it on BBC iPlayer later. Griffin’s mission was simple: appear respectable, be moderate, seem reasonable. Trouble is, when you’ve spent your adult life hobnobbing with the Ku Klux Klan and saying that Auschwitz is a fairy story, your mission is pretty much impossible. Sure enough, he squirmed like a maggot on a hook when his outrageous beliefs were quoted back at him. Griffin is also a coward – he stubbornly refused to admit what everyone in the studio, and sitting at home watching on the sofa, knew: that his agenda was driven by skin colour and race; nothing to do with culture.

Should he even have been on there?

Yes, he should. Yes, of course. You get 900,000 votes and you can’t be censored. If we don’t have freedom of speech, we have nothing. Otherwise who will decide who can and cannot speak? It won’t be you, that’s for sure. The BBC were right to say that as a public sector broadcaster they couldn’t censor a politician with votes.

Freedom of speech doesn’t open the door to murder and pillage – we quite rightly have laws in the UK that forbid inciting racial hatred, or incitement to murder, or advocating violence, threats to kill etc. So people like Nick Griffin have to be very careful what they say now. It wasn’t always like this: Enoch Powell’s infamous “rivers of blood” speech was allowed to pass in 1968, whereas today I suspect he would get his collar felt by the long arm of the law. There’s no need to be terrified of someone whose views are so comical even people who hold them are embarrassed to express them.When intolerant people come into view, it always brings out the intolerance in others. It's instructive to watch.

For a start the adolescent loonies ‘protesting’ against his appearance seemed oblivious to the plank in their own eye. They complain about ‘fascism’ but by deciding for themselves who should and should not appear on television they are have a little sideline in fascism going themselves. It seems that plenty of violence is dished out by the anti-Nazi league/Socialist Workers party who spend their lives in pursuit of a cause or a bandwagon to jump on.

Of course we have plenty of ‘fascists’ in this country. Fascist has become one of those derogatory terms that is nowadays applied to absolutely anyone you disagree with. Like foxhunting? You’re a fascist. Want to ban foxhunting? Fascist. Want to cap immigration? Ban anything? Or do anything unpopular? Then you’re a fascist. Fascism is about the worship of the state, combined with a mercantilist economic policy that has little to do with free market policies and an aggressive, nationalistic foreign policy that is opposed to the free movement of peoples and other aspects of globalisation.

By most of these standards the BNP don’t score highly on the fascist scale. To call them ‘Nazi’ is just absurd, and denigrates the victims of Hitler. They have a policy on immigration that in some ways is very left-wing: to stop it, even reverse it. They don’t believe in the free market, free movement of people

We have racist, sectarian, violent groups in the UK but you never hear the anti-fascist protestors or the Socialist Workers Party or the anti-Nazi League complaining about them. Sinn Fein, an organisation that’s murdered thousands of people, now sits in Government; Islamic extremist movements that advocate violence and preach beliefs incompatible with Western values are never picketed by the Anti Nazi League when they appear at mosques or campuses or schools. Funny, that.

Jack Straw came across as a man of straw - refusing resolutely to concede that Labour's misguided immigration policy had fuelled the rise of the BNP when even his own supporters could see that was the case. He was so righteous in his indignation he refused to acknowledge what everyone could see. His refusal to budge or even admit there was room for improvement in immigration policy rebounded on him and he suddenly seemed evasive, shifty, myopic and even arrogant.

Bonnie Greer, no doubt a woman of considerable talents and qualities, ended up looking arrogant, petulant and foolish. It would have been quite easy to deconstruct Griffin’s absurdities around the topic of genetic purity, but Greer chose to try and appear superior and again refused to acknowledge anything. Perhaps that’s how panellists are coached before appearing on screen, or maybe that’s the done thing.

One minute she harked back to the Ice Age to demonstrate there were no such thing as 'indigenous' Britons, the next patronising Griffin by alluding to his "two two" and suggesting he do more reading. She was stumped, however, when Griffin craftily suggested that no-one would deny there was such a thing as an indigenous Maori or Aboriginal.

It was obvious Griffin had a point, even though it was used to mask a sinister and dangerous eugenics theme. There is no such thing as pure-bred British – we’re all hybrids after all, out of Africa. But it’s also true that the British have been a fairly insular bunch prior to mass immigration in the 1950s, and everyone knows that’s what Griffin was getting at.

Before 1066 of course it wasn’t anything like that – Angles, Saxons, Danes, Vikings, Celts, Romans with their black and Mediterranean heritage; they all settled here. The DNA in Great Britain is an indecipherable mix, a hotch-potch. But notwithstanding the Hugeunots, Jews, Irish, scattering of black slaves brought in through the seaports and a few others, white British people had indeed developed a settled culture they identified as ‘British’ prior to the 1950s. It’s undeniable.

The killer point though, the one that everyone in this country understands, is that Britishness is now defined by nationality, character, language and values – not by skin colour or ethnicity. It’s something I’m proud of. I like that about this country. One only has to look at the furore in insular China, where there is uproar over a half-black, half-Chinese girl appearing on a talent show. Many Chinese simply can’t accept that someone with black parentage can be ‘Chinese’ (or Han Chinese). Nationality is defined by ethnicity, which we know is a fallacy as all races are mixed. But in the UK nationality and ethnicity are separate. People who combine and try to pretend they are the same them look stupid and are actually embarrassed about their own views.

I also believe that people who settle in a country, at any point in history, have an obligation to respect the laws, traditions and customs of the society they find themselves in, and attempt to integrate as best they can. Not easy if you experience racism and discrimination, but you must try. Some groups seem to have managed this better than others.

Multiculturalism has not served the UK well. It’s lead to insular sub-societies cut off from the mainstream, sometimes embittered and feeling disenfranchised and searching for an outlet for their identity, sometimes in the most extreme ways, as in the suicide bombings of 2005. Having a society where everyone feels they have a stake is more constructive. Unfortunately the BNP want to promote a cultural apartheid in this country, which would only do harm.

No-one believes that people with dark skin should be ‘sent back’, as the NF used to say. Sent back to where? The British hospital they were born in? It’s a non-starter and everyone knows it. Britain has absorbed immigrants very well, by and large. So it wasn’t necessary for Bonnie Greer to talk about Ice Age Neanderthals.

The BBC themselves also emerged with little credibility. They wanted to have their cake and eat it; one moment saying that Griffin could not be denied a platform because of the BNP's electoral success, the next trying to rig the audience and panel against him with hostile questions and a partisan audience. Why stick a black woman next to Griffin? Bonnie Greer was chosen because she was black, make no mistake about it. It was the BBC’s attempt to embarrass Griffin. But the audience could see through it.

It wasn't necessary to ban Griffin, censor him or rig the audience and panel. He was given enough rope to hang himself, and by the end he had done so by attempting to defend the indefensible. Politics based on skin colour is so absurd even racists are embarrassed to admit to their views, and the audience sniggered when he was cornered about the Holocaust.

One of the few good points Bonnie Greer made was that without freedom of speech we have nothing. I enjoyed watching Griffin talking rubbish about indigenous race, he looked foolish. Not surprisingly, his own party is far from happy with his performance. I look forward to seeing more of him, and then watch his party implode, despite the opinion polls showing imaginary 'swings' and 'surges' for him.

What of the BNP themselves? Groups founded purely to attack others always end in schisms and fratricide - they cannot contain their desire to destroy and so always turn on themselves. That's why the BNP is an offshoot of the old National Front, why Irish Republican Groups splinter and why racists always fight civil wars with each other.

I don’t think there’s any need to fear the BNP. They have nothing to offer because the UK is ethnically mixed now, and it’s irreversible. Everyone knows that. Once we have a controlled immigration policy and the economic climate improves, they will fade away. Even by the standards of fringe parties they are small. It’s seems clear to me that a lot of people who vote for them do so as a protest because they’re scared, worried or angry about immigration and ‘foreigners’. Some are racist, I will bet most aren’t – they’re just ignorant and fearful. My guess is that prolonged media coverage will (a) expose the BNP to more ridicule and (b) force the Government to have a sensible immigration policy.

People who spread fear always do so because they are fearful themselves. Fear is what drives them: fear of the unknown, fear of change, fear of ‘the other’. Nick Griffin and his supporters have lived, and will continue to live their whole lives in fear. That is their greatest punishment.

The Rules of Work

2009-08-07T16:28:00.002+01:00

I'm starting a new section called "The Rules of Work". My ideas and advice on how to flourish in an office environment, accumulated over the last decade and a half (almost) of working in offices in the UK - in banking, insurance, the Metropolitan Police, local councils, charities and IT departments. I've been around a bit ;)

Here are some rules to get you started:

Look Busy. When you walk somewhere in the office – to another part of the building, to the photocopier, to have a chat with your friend about anything – always carry file conspicuously held in your hand or tucked under your arm. If not a file then a notepad or a bunch of papers. Take something with you on every trip you make. It makes you look professional, like you have a purpose and are a dedicated guy who is focussed on their work and not an idler who is loafing around. Of course, you are focussed on your work. I know that, and you know that. But even if you’re going for a chat about what your friend did over the weekend, always carry your file with you; you always want to look busy.

If you make a mistake, for goodness’ sake don’t try and cover it up. Ever.

If it’s your fault apologise. Don’t try and qualify your apology, deflect blame or justify yourself. If you do it will be easy to spot and your apology will be ignored; in fact people will regard you worse than they did if you hadn’t apologised at all.

· When you write an email, put together the text first; add in the name of the addressee afterwards.

· Never write anything personal about anyone in an email. Ever. No matter how much of a git they are. Anything you type on a keyboard remains in cyberspace FOREVER and can come back and haunt you. IT departments are rubbish at most things but strangely are very good at keeping things that can damn you.

· Never badmouth anyone, even in private. You think it’s safe by the water cooler, but it’s not. For a start you can (and probably will) be overheard; but even if you’re not, your co-conspirator only needs to tell one person they think they can trust and the dominoes will start falling – a chain reaction which will lead inexorably to someone who will hear that you have been badmouthing their best buddy. Oops. If you really have to, criticise their work, never them personally. That way you have something to back yourself up with.

· Try and keep your private life out of your work life. Especially relationships.

Extradite Gary McKinnon

2009-08-07T15:00:00.002+01:00

Always be suspicious when has-been ‘celebrities’ join forces with politicians to campaign for something. Especially when the something in question has been reduced to a black-and-white, good versus-evil protest with political agendas thrown in. Enter Gary McKinnon.

GK has admitted hacking into Pentagon computers and the US authorities, not surprisingly, want to try him for it. He's been fighting extradition. Not because he didn't do it - he's admitted that he did - but because (a) he doesn't think he can handle a long stretch in the clink and (b) he says really didn't mean it - he was looking for aliens, you see.

Now I don't know the full facts of the case. And neither do you. But neither, more importantly, do Boris Johnson and all the other media whores who have jumped on the McKinnon bandwagon. None of them know the full facts. But they are quite happy to prefer not to hear them in a court of law because it means they can use this case as a political football.

Boris Johnson's argument is that McKinnon is a 'classic British nut-job' - and so should not be tried on that basis! I didn't know that being a nut-job determined the validity or otherwise of an extradition request. Don't judge people by your own standards, Boris. The Daily Mail wants another stick to beat the Government with and so has championed his case. Gary McKinnon's mother is deluded in the way that only the mother of a criminal could be - 'not my boy!' is her argument.

There is a familiar narrative of self-pity in this tale. Our culture's first priority is to look for victimisation - either find it, or perpetrate it ourselves. So this story of an alleged crime and possible trial has instead been transmogrified into a pantomime story of victimhood: one of our boys being bullied by the American military; a poor hacker faced with oblivion by a faceless prison-system. No-one actually claims he didn't do it. It's just that his supporters don't want him to be punished; or more specifically, they don't want the Americans to punish him.

If McKinnon had hacked into the American branch of Stop the War, Save the Burkha, or The Campaign Stop the American Military Whilst Spreading Love and Happiness these protestors would swivel 180 degrees and be releasing albums urging he be packed off onto the first jet to the US.

Anti-Americanism. Again. Don't these people ever get tired of it? It's so passé. You can bet your bottom dollar - or British Pound - that if the situation were reversed and an American geek had hacked into the Ministry of Defence's computers and potentially compromised or endangered 'our boys' in the military then the Daily Mail would be screaming for his extradition to Belmarsh.

And then there's a political point that people who don't really care about McKinnon have been pushing. That the extradition treaty between the UK and US, signed in haste after 9/11, is unfair and biased towards the US system, they claim. And maybe it is. But so what? Argue about the treaty, don't have a hissy fit and say "That's it, you're not having this hacker now". The terms of the treaty are clear. If you want to abrogate the treaty then do so - but do it for everyone.

The last argument is a relatively new one in this case. That Gary McKinnon 'suffers' from something called Asperger's Syndrome. Apparently it's a form of autism that, according to the National Autistic Society's website can cause difficulty with social interaction, social communication and social imagination.

Nothing about distinguishing right from wrong. Nothing about being compos mentis. Nothing about being fit or otherwise to stand trial. It's just not relevant.

McKinnon knew what he was doing. He knew that his excuse that he was looking for aliens was hogwash. He just dreamt that up when he got caught, and celebrities-without-a-cause bought his line and signed up to his defence without the slightest clue about what they were doing.

He's as guilty as sin. Think I'm jumping the gun? Fine, let a jury decide. The House of Lords and the European Court have all agreed to his extradition. None of their eminences have agreed with his mum that he faces an unfair trial, that he is unfit to stand trial, that the offence is not serious enough - in other words they have thrown out all the excuses Gary McKinnon has come out with.

So off you go to America, Gary. If you're clever enough to crash Pentagon computers then I'm sure you'll have no problems at all in a court of law. If a jury agrees that you're a harmless fantasist you'll be back home for tea and biscuits. If not, then I hope you like prison food. :)

A Little Wit

2009-08-06T15:48:00.003+01:00

"Can I ask a stupid question?"

"Yes - better than anyone I've ever met".

(Golden Girls, TV Show).
Love this one. I gotta remember it!

The Great Financial Crisis

2009-07-23T15:29:00.004+01:00

The following is a copy of a short essay I was required to write recently as part of a job application I made to a Business-to-Business media company as a trainee journalist.

The essay was required to be 500 words long and the only stated requirement was to "discuss the response of the British Government and regulatory authorities to the financial crisis". A pretty broad topic, and not many words to do it in. Here it is.

In late 2007 Northern Rock found itself struggling to raise money on capital markets. Defaults on sub-prime mortgages in the US had triggered a banking ‘credit crunch’ and banks which had specialised in mortgages found themselves unable to raise funds on capital markets. The government searched in vain for a private buyer before finally nationalised Northern Rock in February 2008. As credit tightened and liquidity decreased the Government moved to a Keynesian policy of active intervention to free up credit, consisting primarily of capital injection and asset guarantees.

The Government at first encouraged buy-outs, such as Lloyds TSB’s takeover of HBOS. The Bank of England, although its remit was supposedly limited to inflation targets, created a Special Liquidity Scheme to swap banks’ risky mortgage assets for billions of pounds of government debt. As banks refused to lend and share prices plummeted, private buyers stayed away and the Government was forced to nationalise banks such as Bradford and Bingley, taking on their debt. This process snowballed by October 2008 into the offer of unlimited guarantees to all British banks. The objective was to restore confidence, encourage lending and forestall a recession. Despite this the UK entered recession anyway.

In September 2007 the FSA imposed a belated ban on short-selling to relieve downward share price pressure. It also announced it would guarantee savings of up to £50,000 to try and reassure small savers. To boost lending the Bank of England made a succession of interest rate cuts until they reached the lowest rates ever seen in the UK. As the economy deteriorated the UK Government injected billions of pounds of taxpayers’ cash to bail out major banks in exchange for equity stakes. Confidence and lending had fallen so low that it was felt that only the most direct form of state intervention and control could restart lending. The Government had to hope, rather than guarantee, that taxpayers would eventually get their money back.

A second bank bail-out was launched in January this year, taking the total to almost £400 billion. The government also tried to tackle the problem by cutting VAT to encourage consumer spending; but (as German politicians pointed out) when weighed against the public’s instinct to save and continuing high street sales, the small VAT reduction had little effect. The government also unveiled plans to guarantee up to £20 billion of loans to firms.

The response of the Government and regulatory authorities has been incremental, reactive and often too little too late. The Chancellor’s recent reforms to vet the pay deals of bank executives, force banks to hold more capital and stop lending ‘overstretch’ by banks have not fundamentally altered the ‘tripartite’ regulatory structure between the Treasury, FSA and Bank of England. Nevertheless, the government has avoided a total banking collapse and this should be praised. The real cost, however, aside from huge debts, has been a collapse in the public’s trust.

498 words

BBC Licence Fee - licenced robbery

2009-07-21T22:36:00.003+01:00

I've just had my latest direct debit through the post for the BBC licence fee. £142.50. The Licence Fee seems to be one of those things, like rain in the summer, that people seem to think is inevitable unless you go abroad. Except that it isn't. The Licence Fee should be abolished and the BBC privatised.

The licence fee is an anachronism, as well as being unfair and an inefficient way of funding what remains an organisation that still produces a lot of good stuff. Anachronism because the BBC is no longer the only channel out there. Unfair because you are forced to pay - under pain of jail - whether you watch the BBC or not. And inefficient because it stifles innovation and distorts output.

There is simply no coherent reason why the entire TV-watching population should fund a media organisation, even if they never watch it. The counter-argument is that the BBC is a source of excellence and a national institution: "Auntie". Well, I like my aunties but I still think they should pay their way.

I've always thought that simply being around a long time and having a bit of history - or being old, in plain English - is not sufficient to isolate an instutution from changing times. A bit like the Royal Family.

There are lots of sources of excellence in TV (and other media) - the internet has opened the floodgates and the market is king. If people like it, it will pay it's way; it they don't, it dies. I do actually support the state stepping in and preserving and nurturing our cultural heritage if society becomes more Philistine and prefers Big Brother to quality documentaries.

But the irony is that the BBC cannot escape market forces; it actually has to join the mob and pay Jonathan Ross his millions, bid for cricket, Wimbledon, football and other sport, buy film rights to screen them. So in fact the BBC would be better off being freed from the grip of the Government and the Culture Secretary telling them how to spend our money (not 'their' money) and going it alone by selling its output, having adverts and making better use of the internet and newer technologies. If the BBC's supporters are so confident that its output is first-rate, world-beating and second to none, then why not put their money where their mouth is? Why do you need a subsidy?

This isn't the USSR. Why should the Government control the BBC? What's that you say? They don't control the output? Au contraire, the Govenment can raise or lower the licence fee and appoint the Director General and therefore has the BBC by the short and curlies. The irony is it's our money, not the Government's. Any yet the licence-fee payers have very little, if any, control over the BBC's output.

The licence fee has also distorted the political slant of the BBC. Ever wondered why the BBC advertises its jobs in the Guardian and not The Telegraph? Surprise, surprise. BBC, of course, has a left-wing slant, which unless you've been living on the dark side of the moon for the last 50 years you can't have failed to spot. Left-wing, by the way, means more state influence and control as opposed to free enterprise; it does not mean equality as opposed to racism, as some people seem to think. State influence - it's starting to make sense, isn't it?

It's said by some that privatising 'Auntie' would lead to a political slant anyway. Maybe. But so what? At least people would have a choice whether to fund it or not (by watching it). Right now there is no choice. A company that forces money out of you and then creates content that has a slant you may not agree with! Want to switch over? Fine, don't watch us, but guess what - we'll take your money anyway! We don't care if you think it's mad, it's the law.

Scrap the licence fee and privatise the BBC.

Michael Jackson and the curse of fame

2009-06-27T16:28:00.002+01:00

Farewell Jacko. The Sun was right - you really were wacko, but the thing is, you probably couldn't have been anything else. If there is a lesson from his life it is that being famous is more of a curse than a blessing.

He had no childhood. Well, not a childhood that any of us would recognise. Being the object of a marketing campaign when you're twelve or whatever just ain't good for you. For a start you don't rub alongside the other kids because you've got a tour to do. As a kid you need to experience a few failures and find a way to deal with them. But if you're famous your manager and record company deal with that. You're just a money-making machine to them.

He had so much money he didn't seem to understand the value of it. He covered up his kids and himself in public because they didn't have a private life. What child deserves that? That's got to be the most devastating thing about being famous in that instantly-recognised, dumbly-adulated way: no privacy whatsoever. If that's not a living hell will somebody please tell me what is.

If people who go on X-Factor, Britain's Got 'Talent' (couldn't resist the quotation marks) and others can't learn from Michael Jackson, if they still think that it's a good career move to be human heroin for TV and tabloid junkies to inject themselveswith for an instant thrill or distraction, then more fool them.

NightJack vs The Times

2009-06-22T15:49:00.004+01:00

A police officer and blogger who reported from inside the police has been revealed. He had battled in the courts to keep his identity secret, but the judge overruled him and he was unmasked. He called himself 'NightJack. In fact he is Richard Horton, a detective constable in the Lancashire constabulary.

The ruling is significant because it sets a precedent: My Justice Eady ruled that blogging is essentially a public activity and that bloggers therefore have no automatic right to privacy.

So it’s a bad day for us bloggers. If you are a whistleblower exposing corruption or incompetence, the law will not ride to your defence. Even if you have something interesting to say that gets you a following (NightJack had 500,000 apparently – if only I had that!) you have no legal right to privacy and so your employer can, and probably will, catch you. And sack you.

The Times is responsible for this. The reporter who sniffed out NightJack is Patrick Foster. Readers of my blog will see that I worked at The Times recently, doing work experience on their Home News section. I didn’t meet Patrick Foster, but as you will see in my previous post, I got a flavour of the ethos of The Times during my time there.

Was this a blow for, or against freedom? This judgment doesn’t restrict freedom to blog, just freedom to hide. And as we can see in Iran and China, anonymity is an essential tool in the arsenal against the power of the state. But there is a competing freedom: the freedom to report.

If The Times wants to report upon, and scrutinise, an anonymous blogger who may or may not be telling the truth 100% of the time, then why shouldn’t they? NightJack wasn’t asking the court to allow him to write; he was asking the court to censor someone else’s freedom to publish. So the onus in this case was on NightJack to explain why the media should be muzzled, not why he should be allowed to blog with complete anonymity. If you want to have freedom of the press – and I do – it has to be absolute, and cut both ways.

I am a blogger. If I want to publish something critical, mischievous, seditious, scurrilous or scandalous then I remain free to do so. That is freedom of expression. As long as I’m not doing anything criminal, that remains the case. What this judgement says, however, is that I cannot expect other journalists’ freedom of expression and reporting to be curtailed on my behalf, just because I will be left feeling uncomfortable when my employer (or anyone else) finds out who I am.

Now there’s a lot of cant being spouted by The Times right now. They weren’t acting as guardians of free expression in bringing this case, that’s for sure. They argued in court that it was in the public interest for NighJack to be exposed. Come off it. We love the sheer cheek of a guardian of the law savaging his superiors and gving us the inside picture on how the fuzz go about their business. The Times knew full well that if they won then anonymous blogs that challenged authority in any way shape or form would be doomed.

Legally The Times deserved to win, because their freedom of reporting trumps NightJack’s desire for court censorship. Yes the ruling will restrict his freedom to publish, and will worry all the other subversive bloggers out there. But NightJack’s discomfort when the Chief Inspector asks him into the office for ‘a little chat’ is part of the chain reaction of the ruling, and not strictly the issue the courts had to pass judgment on.

The Times doesn’t come out well from this. They brought this case out of self-interest, not to champion freedom of speech. When I worked at The Times in May 2009 I was told over and over again that the printed media is in a death spiral, unable to pull out of the destructive wake left by online media content. Why pay for a paper owned by Rupert Murdoch to tell you about the police when a real copper can give you the inside picture without having to pass through the filter of the Police’s own media department?

So The Times brought this case to kill off blogs as a viable alternative to mainstream media. Perhaps they didn’t set out with that aim in mind initially – no-one can really say, apart from the editor. But they are smart people; I know because I’ve met and worked with them. They knew that the blogosphere, at least in the UK, would never be the same if they won this case.

The Times’ defence, as articulated by Daniel Finkelstein, doesn’t pass muster. Sure, NightJack might have been a politician masquerading as a copper. So what? The whole point of the internet, of ‘citizen journalists’, is that there are so many of them. We don’t have to take anyone’s word for it.

So the end result is that blogging is really no different to standing up on Hyde Park corner and yelling something. You can say what you like, as long as you don’t break the law. If what you say upsets your company, they can sack you. You can challenge them in an industrial tribunal. If your contract has a clause of ‘gross misconduct’, the tribunal must interpret whether you have been in breach of this. It’s not an automatic ‘you’re fired’ judgment. Companies need protecting from anonymous employees who may lie about them. But the downside of this judgment is that one more avenue for whistleblowers has been firmly closed. It looks like they’ll just have to go to The Times now. Which is probably what they wanted. If anything good is to come out of this judgement it should be how to give whistleblowers more protection. The blogosphere is not the answer.

So I mourn the exposure of NightJack, and The Times' victory. But it was inevitable, and bloggers need to understand that the internet isn’t anonymous. It never was. Suppose The Times had lost the case. What if another blogger found out who NightJack was and wanted to expose him? Would the courts be right in silencing him too? You can’t pick and choose freedom of expression. Get over it guys. And keep blogging.

I'm Back....

2009-06-20T12:51:00.003+01:00

After a hiatus of some months, I have returned to my blog and will be posting again. I have completed work experience at The Times and The Sunday Telegraph so will be giving you the inside picture on those papers too.

My article in

2009-05-20T16:02:00.000+01:00

Here it is, a case study I researched and wrote myself, about an innovative offer Hyundai have made in the US:

http://business.timesonline.co.uk/tol/business/industry_sectors/retailing/article6307756.ece

University Challenge - The Final (insult)

2009-02-25T18:49:00.015Z

On Monday I watched the final of University Challenge. Corpus Christi College, Oxford, edged out Manchester University to win. I'm a general knowledge geek, so like pitting myself against the contestants. Except that the star of the Corpus Christi team, and in fact the whole series, has been one Miss Gail Trimble.

She was far and away the most knowledgeable, and (crucially for this quiz show) speedy in her responses on everything from biology to Shakespeare, central Asia to Latin aphorisms, and single-handedly amassing scored 825 of Corpus Christi's 1,235 points. Gail is no supermodel - I'd describe her appearance as sweet - but having a stellar brain just pushes a woman several notches higher up in the desirability stakes. A lady who can demonstrate depth of knowledge, learning, culture and an understanding of the world automatically becomes that little bit hotter. For me, anyway.

Unfortunately poor Gail has been engulfed in a maelstrom of publicity, much of it emanating from angry bloggers, furious at her supposed arrogance, smugness and poshness. Jesus, give the girl a break.

I watched her in the final (and semi-final the previous week) where she was lightening quick on the buzzer and displayed a formidable general knowledge. Bloggers and Facebook cretins are apparently infuriated that she smiled after each question answered correctly, or said "well done" or "quite!" to her colleagues when they got something right. (She could have won it all by herself).

We all know what it really is, don't we? It's inverted snobbery, envy, and class prejudice - plain as the nose on your face. So what if she smiled when she got things right? If you were on telly in front of millions you'd grin a little too. If you didn't people would say you were moody, arrogant etc etc. I noticed she had a habit of flicking back her long mane of hair rather imperiously after every answer was again rewarded by a clearly smitten Paxman with an affirmative. But again, so what? Everyone has their little ticks, habits and idiosyncrasies. Put yourself on TV, bigmouth, and we'll see how you look.

Funny how the nation fawns over Jade Goody, the uber-chav and ignoramus supreme. I feel sorry for her now she has cancer, but I'm referring to her lionising by the media before her illness. Isn't it safer to gawp at someone when they're so obviously dumber than you? But take a uber-smart woman, who is successful, and whom you could never emulate and suddenly the women of Britain (and is mostly the women) are venting their rage at her. Too bad the sisters missed the chance to take to the blogosphere to defend one of their own when she does quite well in, you know, the male power-structures. Oh wait, they don't actually like her being a bit brainy. Sorry Gail, back to the kitchen, love.

Then there's her class. Maybe it's because she single-handedly (almost) smacked the arse off those northerners from Manchester. But really it's because she's vaguely posh, goes to Oxford, has a 'cut-glass' accent (whatever that is) and - this is the clincher - she went to a private school.

The Sun jumped on the bandwagon and wasted no time in applying a bit of inverse snobbery. In a spectacular display of vulgarity and crassness trumpeted the fact that Gail failed to answer a single question - a single question! - of their own "pub quiz". Sample question: "Who won the most recent series of Celebrity Big Brother?" Well I bet that makes the Einsteins who read The Sun feel a lot better about themselves.

I've been a fan of this show since the 1980s, when Bamber Gascoigne presided over this general knowledge inter-university quiz. Even with the inferior, sneering little twerp Jeremy Paxman in the role of host (or 'inquisitor' as some people refer to him) it's still compelling. I've never got over missing out on the chance to represent my alma mater, The University of Warwick, while I was a student there between 1992 and 1995. Inexplicably, the BBC axed Bamber Gascoigne and the show between 1992 and 1997 (I think), only resurrecting it when it was too late for me to even apply. I did see someone I recognised on the Warwick team a little later.

As for my own performance, I did get a few of Gail's questions in the semis and final myself, especially the history and Latin ones ("Carpe Diem" - that's "seize the day" by Homer! Hooray!). But she would still have trounced me, and most other people. And that's what the cyberspace bullies don't like.

The Credit Crunch - YOU are to blame

2009-02-16T21:39:00.008Z

That's right, you. Not the banks, the chief executives of said banks, the traders, short-sellers, estate agents, gazumpers, or even politicians. You. Well, partly.

Now I know this is harsh. And here in the UK the chiefs of several major banks have been hauled before the Treasury Select Committee in the House of Commons and 'grilled', as they say in the jargon here, on their role in the credit crunch. Like medieval undesirables being put in the stocks, the bankers were forced to endure the rotten tomatoes thrown by, of all people, politicians.

You could just sense the MPs' relish at finally getting their chance to play the role of people's champion, and striking a blow for the common man. Rarely do politicians find themselves in such a position, usually being themselves pilloried for their duplicity and greed and universally despised to boot. So there they were, like modern-day Wat Tylers in their own little Peasants' Revolt. Except of course, it was nothing more than an exercise in theatre and hypocrisy. Politicians like John McFall MP, the Chairman of the Committee, are trying to salvage their own reputations - and who better to make even a politician look like a virgin bride than a banker? To quote Oscar Wilde, it was 'the unspeakable in full pursuit of the uneatable'.

But all this blaming and outrage serves to obscure the pernicious tendency in today's society to blame everyone under the sun but oneself. I agree, the banking ghouls who sought quick bucks, the spineless regulators who let them carry out regardless and the politicians, now crying foul, who encouraged them all the way are to be despised. But how about the general public accept that they played their part, and take some of the blame themselves?

I don't remember a mass boycott of 100% mortgages, at 4, 5, or 6 times a borrowers salary; no boycott of cheap and easy credit cards with their low interest rates. Where money was available, people took it, investors bought buy-to-let properties, bank shareholders approved the bonus culture which skewed the banking system. Shareholders also voted en masse for the de-mutualisation of the building societies for a few bucks - great, but these banks are now all bust or have been sold to foreign buys for a pittance. Not so great.

For years everyone I spoke to spoke of the 'housing bubble' - warning of the inevitable 'correction' in the housing market. The whole country could see it, but not everyone acted on it. Gordon Brown, as Chancellor and then Prime Minister, did nothing whatever about it. We've had housing booms in the UK before. Unsustainable demand always collapses. The same with credit cards, that everyone was in love with until just recently. It all boils down to personal responsibility, something lost in British society.

If you go ice-skating and break your leg, it's your fault. Mostly. But everyone wants to sue the ice rink now. When people get themselves into a mess they cast around for a pantomime villain - the system, the government, their parents, their friends; anyone but themselves. And so it has been with the recession. I always find it hard to sympathise with people who have a debt problem. Just because you walk past McDonald's every day doesn't mean you have to ram down their big macs, does it? It's your own damn fault.

Bankers, politicians, regulators and a flawed system have to take a lot of the blame. But don't wriggle out of personal responsibility. Consider the inverse: people who shunned easy credit and high debt and instead saved might be feeling aggrieved right now. The Bank of England is slashing interest rates, printing money, offering vast loans and generally prostituting itself to save the indebted, and their egregious banks. It seems unfair. But hold on. People who have over-stretched themselves most will be hit hardest, and first: repossessions and bailiffs. If you lose your job, those with savings will be best placed to ride it out.

The causes of the recession are many, and complex. But you reap what you sow. Collectively, as a society; but also individually. There's a lesson in there somewhere.

Stopped and Questioned - Section 44

2009-02-12T22:16:00.005Z

A few weeks ago I was on my way back to the office from the bank during my lunch break. I work very close to Highbury and Islington station and was beginning a walk through Highbury Fields back to my place of work. I didn't pay any particular attention to the police van parked by the junction, or to the policeman standing beside it. "Excuse me," he said as I passed. "Could I have a quick word?"

I said yes, of course. He sounded almost apologetic. He then told me that he was carrying out some "stop and questions", and that he had been authorised to do so by the Assistant Commissioner under Section 44 of the Prevention of Terrorism Act - and could I please explain to him what I was doing in the area? I was just stunned - was he serious? It was so absurd on so many levels that I was tempted to laugh, but guessed that he was serious and that an air of ridicule would not have worked in my favour. I said sure - I was on my way back to work from my lunch. Which I was. He said thank you very much that's all - oh, and did I understand why I had been stopped? I said no, I didn't. I thought – why me?

So the bobby proceeded to explain the reasoning behind his action. Except that he didn't. He just repeated, verbatim, what he had just told me. That the Assistant Commissioner had designated this area as somewhere where stop and questioning could take place because of sub-sections 1 and 2 of Section 44 of the Prevention of Terrorism Act - and that was why I had been stopped. And he assured me that he was stopping people of every colour and race, and that it was nothing to do with that. And that that was why he had stopped me. And questioned me. I didn't point out to him that his reasoning was circular and amounted to really no reason at all. I could see that it wasn't worth it, that he was just doing his job, following orders and trying his best. And, I have to say, he was very, very polite; friendly, even.

Something strange then happened. He offered to take down my name in a notebook - but not necessarily my address. He said this was purely optional, that it wouldn't be kept, and that it for my protection: if I wanted to pursue a claim against him the police notes would reveal who he was. I said ok. I noticed he spelt my name wrong (I have a very awkward surname) and he didn't write down my address. So no chance of anything going on my record in the vast databases the police have. I went on my way, but felt I shouldn't really have given him my name. In fact thet whole episode struck me as an absurd waste of his and my time, and an exercise in futility that made no-one any safer.

Let's suppose I was in fact, a terrorist. Not a freedom-fighter, of course - but a terrorist. (You can write in and we can debate the difference.) Now why would I tell PC Plod that I was on my way to blow up some infidels? You can bet I wouldn't. It would take a blunder of pub-theatre proportions for me to blurt out my dastardly plan. So we can safely say that a real terrorist would not be snared by the "excuse me can I have a word" tactic. I like to think I'm a reasonable chap who recognises that the cops have a tough, and unpleasant job to do so I didn't kick up a fuss, play the race card (I'm a bit swarthy, you see) or threaten to sue anyone. Besides, Plod isn't responsible for Section 44 - the government is.The problem with Section 44 is that it proffers no basis for discerning suspicion. None. It's just applied against whomsoever the officer feels like questioning. From the public's perspective it's a preposterous intrusion into their everyday lives (why do I have to tell anyone why I'm on a street?) and from the police's point of view it's an absurd waste of time and resources. It smacks of the old 'sus' laws in the UK, when the police could stop and search anyone without having to explain themselves. It's the first crack in the shiny white egg-shell of a free society - the apparatus of the state being able to decide at a whim that it should demand that you explain your very presence.

I'm all in favour of hunting down those who mean to kill us. I was on the tube system on 7th July 2005 and escaped the bombs meant to kill me. I want my would-be killers destroyed, stopped, or at least caught. But stoppages of the citizenry need to be based on evidence. Evidence that the fellow walking through Highbury Fields may have been, or is about to be, involved in plotting murder, or evidence that carrying out such stops can actually prevent a crime. (For example if it is known that a bomber is in the Highbury Fields area and he is a 6ft swarthy type - then I'd understand.) Notice I do not say 'proof' - evidence can be something much flimsier than that. I'm happy to entertain the argument that some evidence is so sensitive that it should not be made public - as long as a judge can still view and assess it. But random stop and questions, or stop and searches, that are based on an individual's gut feeling (ie prejudice) serve no purpose, achieve nothing, waste much and ironically leave us more vulnerable to those who would harm us.

If you have had a similar experience, or have a comment to make, please write in.

Hollywood Bad Guys

2009-02-12T22:14:00.002Z

They are the indispensable part of just about every Hollywood movie. In the Charlie Chaplin era they twirled their big handlebar moustaches; in Westerns they wore black hats; and by the time James Bond was on the scene they were fully-fledged megalomaniacs. But Hollywood baddies have evolved over time. In some ways they have become a cultural weathervane. And culturally controversial. Is it true that muslims have got, or are getting, a bad press? Is Hollywood’s portrayal of good vs evil just American cultural imperialism? And why do so many bad guys seem to have British accents?

In the 1950s it was quite simple. The sci-fi and horror movies of the 50s reflected insecurity about communism with rubber-suited aliens (and occasionally their human dupes) invading or subverting America. Cue the US military, or a humble maverick citizen, to bring them crashing down, as in Invaders From Mars (1953). The classic westerns made it black and white too. Just airbrush the annihilation of the natives, as well as the appropriation of their land, from history and presto! You get good old fashioned cowboys and indians. (The real cowboys were actually mostly black.) If it was cultural vandalism it didn’t matter as by then there weren’t many native Americans left to protest against it. It was an early example of historical revisionism, flavoured with blatant racism. As John Wayne famously said: "I don't feel we did wrong in taking this great country away from them. There were great numbers of people who needed new land, and the Indians were selfishly trying to keep it for themselves." Thanks John, I’m glad we’ve cleared that one up.

Dr No kicked off the James Bond era in 1962. The villains tended to be, once again, communists in the guise of the KGB, or else preposterous megalomaniacs. The latter did reflect a shift, however. They tended to be maverick (and Western) capitalists, with untrammelled power and influence, even to subvert usual cold-war politics. Suddenly, capitalism could be scary. SPECTRE (Special Executor for Counter-Intelligence, Terrorism, Revenge and Extortion) was a sort of multi-national corporate entity, with operations and influence everywhere. A bit like McDonalds, but with Ronald as a serial killer. Out-of–control Western-style corporatism and commercialism was portrayed as a Bad Thing, notwithstanding the absurdity of building cities under the sea (The Spy Who Loved Me, 1977 ) or in space (Moonraker,1979). By the era of The French Connection (1971), ruthless drug dealers had appeared on the silver screen. They were ideal baddies. Generally foreign (Latin American, or for Popeye Doyle, French), they were ruthless, sadistic and threatened the American way of life. In Clint Eastwood’s Dirty Harry movies a psychopath (Dirty Harry, 1971) gave way to corrupt cops (Magnum Force, 1973). Well, everyone can agree that you wouldn’t want a psychopath living next door. What would it do to property values? But cops as villains…now there was something new.

The Vietnam War, Watergate and the Iran Contra scandal dented confidence in authority figures. Could Hollywood still rely on the US Government to save them from aliens? (Either the intergalactic type, or the foreign variety?) Apparently not. Patriotic mavericks were what was needed. And suddenly, as in Dr Strangelove (1964), M*A*S*H (1970) and Three Days of the Condor (1975), corporate America, the CIA, the army, the government, or even the president could be the enemy. As the 1980s progressed, James Bond persisted with the KGB / Bill Gates-turned-psycho theme, but the search for baddies was about to get tougher. The end of The Cold War, in 1989, had at a stroke deprived the movie moguls and scriptwriters of tailor-made bad guys for action blockbusters and thrillers. This only intensified the search for villains. With the commies gone, Hollywood increasingly turned to raiding the vaults of history. Nazis were fair game; everyone could agree that Hitler’s boys had been on the wrong side of history. So from the knockabout fun of Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade (1989) to the more serious Schindlers List (1993), Saving Private Ryan (1998) and The Pianist (2002), jackboot-wearing stormtroopers slotted neatly into the bad guy roles. Imperialists and slave-traders were also given the villainous roles in films such as Amistad (1997). Such portrayals are rarely contentious. There aren’t many willing to defend slave-traders as being unfairly traduced.

But Hollywood has always taken liberties with history – the portrayal of native American ‘Indians’, for example, and the silliness of virtually every version of Robin Hood. But historical liberties were turned into travesties in films such as U-571 (2000), which portrayed American sailors as recovering the German enigma ciphering machines from a submarine, when in fact it was the British Royal Navy ship, HMS Bulldog, which did the heroic deed. In a way every country’s film industry is a reflection of how a nation’s self-image and mythology, what they believe about themselves and how they believe others should view them. For The United States, its movie industry also serves a role in cultural affirmation : seeing themselves as being on the ‘right’ side. In many blockbuster movies, such as Independence Day (1996), Armageddon (1998) and Pearl Harbor (2001), it’s the Americans who save the day – as well as, quite often, the human race – with only a few token foreigners thrown in as backup. (Josh Hartnett in Pearl Harbor: “I think World War Two just broke out!” Message to Josh: it actually broke out a whole 2 years before you lot were forced to join in, mate.)

Other films such as The Patriot (2000) and Braveheart (1995) also subverted the historical record. What these films also had in common was the portrayal, as bad guys, of identifiably English-accented characters. Think General Zod in Superman 2. Think Scar, the devious panther in The Lion King. Or the cockney-accented Orcs in Lord of the Rings (Hollywood is American after all, they don’t go for class distinctions.) The devious, untrustworthy, snobbish and often vicious baddie in Hollywood often seems to be British, or more specifically, English, and comes with a posh public-school accent. Maybe it’s America’s roots in it’s Revolution against the British Empire. Or maybe it’s a lingering inferiority complex the Yanks seem to have when faced with British accents. Or maybe it’s just that the English don’t seem to have a grievance-chasing lobby group ready to march around in little circles outside American movie theatres, and then boycott your film. Hollywood has often, it seems, delighted in portraying an evil British baddie getting his comeuppance against an American hero. In any case, the Brit as baddie seems to be a Hollywood, and indeed an American, cultural stereotype. Or is it?

In fact James Bond, Patrick Stewart in Star Trek: Nemesis (2002), Obi Wan Kenobi’s characters in the Star Wars series, The Lord of the Rings, Harry Potter, Narnia and others show that there are plenty of quintessentially British characters who wear the white hat, so to speak. True, talented British actors such as Alan Rickman, Charles Dance, Jeremy Irons, Sir Anthony Hopkins and Gary Oldman often get cast as baddies, sometimes very British ones. But these actors often turn out a German/eastern European accent as required by the role – think Irons in Die Hard with a Vengeance (German) or Oldman in Air Force One (Kazakh, apparently). In fact a lot of nasty bad guys are quite American – think Ray Liotta, Christopher Walken, Ed Harris and Willem Defoe playing all those psychos, hitmen, gangsters and nutters. John Lithgow may have played a dastardly, and very English, baddie in Cliffhanger (1993), but in virtually every other movie he’s been in he’s been a very American evil-doer. Similarly Bruce Willis, Tom Cruise, Harrison Ford and Richard Gere have all had goes at being thoroughly unpleasant (and clearly American) characters in movies. Think also how many Hollywood movies have portrayed Americans themselves variously as white supremacists, rednecks, hillbilly simpletons, ignorant hicks, devious lawyers, gangsters, CIA fiends and crooked politicians and you get the picture. Recently it would seem that other nationalities, particularly Russians, east Europeans, Latin Americans and currently the French, have more feel aggrieved about (see table below). The ‘British baddie’ character beloved of whingers over here is in fact buried beneath an avalanche of foreign, and indeed American, villains.

Hollywood portrayal of foreign villainy is undoubtedly a reflection of American cultural prejudices, ignorance and stereotyping, which after all comes from a nation that prides itself on its insularity. If anything, we should take comfort from Hollywood’s portrayal, through these very stereotypes, of the American public in a negative light - as insular, ignorant and only able to relate to the lowest common denominator and to the most simplistic characterisations. If I were an American movie-goer, I’d start a pressure group to lobby against such offensiveness about me. The 9-1 attacks changed shifted the cultural ground on which movies, and villainy, have been set. The cry has often been raised that Hollywood has characterised Arabs, and Muslims generally, as bad guys, unfairly stereotyping them and reinforcing or even creating prejudices in the minds of movie-going audiences. But does this accusation stand up to scrutiny? The table below, whilst not definitive, suggests not. Arabs and Muslims have very rarely been portrayed as baddies; in Rambo 3(1988) the Muslim Afghans, the mujahadeen, were portrayed as the good guys, on Rambo’s side. In fact aside from a handful of films like True Lies(1994) and Rules of Engagement(2000) not many blockbusters have taken this route. In fact the Sean Penn thriller, The Interpreter, was originally about Muslim terrorists blowing up a bus in New York. But Hollywood quickly rewrote the script and the bus got blown up by African terrorists from the little-known republic of Matobo. ''We didn't want to encumber the film in politics in any way,'' said Kevin Misher, the producer. But by trying not to, he instantly made a different kind of political statement. Nowhere in Hollywood’s anthology has Tom Cruise been shown jetting off to Baghdad or the Hindu Kush to duff up the Taliban or the Mahdi Army. Perhaps because with his boyish looks he has a credibility problem - he might in real life be taken in as a concubine by some butch Afghan. A forthcoming movie about the 9-11 hijackers, United 93, may yet open another chapter in this story. To date, however, Hollywood has so far left Al-Q’aeda and Islamic fundamentalism relatively unblemished by criticism, and tiptoed around Muslim sensibilities, even to the extent of rewriting scripts - which hardly proves Muslim grievances. At least, not yet. Villains and villainy as part of mass entertainment have always reflected cultural assumptions and prejudices, and Hollywood surely stands guilty on that count. When Hollywood has stuck its nose into geo-politics the results have been simplistic, and even historically misleading, and have served only to reflect the American world-view and cultural assumptions. But a lot of accusations of targeting specific groups fall wide of the mark. The explosion of blockbuster movies which began in the 80s and 90s produced a plethora of baddies, including the usual drug lords, but also a liberal sprinkling of corrupt cops and CIA/US government agents, conniving American politicians, Latin American generals, smooth-talking Central Europeans, British toffs and gruff Russian mobsters (see table below).

The US itself is frequently portrayed as being flawed and having nasty undercurrents. In fact Hollywood still has a liberal streak, despite all the gore and violence that today accompanies action blockbusters. Corporatism, capitalism, the CIA and the US military-industrial complex are more often than not the ‘bad’ guys. Even the Christmas classic and annual tear-jerker It’s A Wonderful Life (1946) had plucky James Stewart fighting back against ruthless capitalists. It’s just that Jimmy didn’t chainsaw nasty Mr Henry Potter’s head off at the end like he might today, given what CGI can do for you. In fact there are a myriad of groups complaining that they have been negatively portrayed in Hollywood. But despite their villainous roles, you don’t see white people complaining about their portrayal, do you? Well actually you do now. The latest offended groups are blond men (yes really – apparently they’re disproportionately more likely to be twisted, amoral sociopaths than their darker-haired cousins). Albinos seem to be psychos and killers rather a lot these days– in The Firm(1993) , Matrix Reloaded (2003), Die Another Day (2002), and Blade 2 (2002) – and a pressure group is already complaining. At least albinos are white, no-one can argue about that. The scriptwriters must have thought they were safe from accusations of hate-mongering from minority groups. Oops, wrong again. I’m still waiting for a fight scene between an African-American albino and a Caucasian albino to see if racial stereotyping is independent of colour. If that makes sense. The unfortunate thing is that virtually every film has to have a villain of some sort, otherwise it wouldn’t be much of a film. So there will always be someone complaining. But doesn’t it reflect a lack of cultural confidence to object to ‘your’ group playing the villain?

Perhaps sensitive to who the bad guys are, a new trend has started – aliens as baddies. They have no specific race, no historical or cultural grievances, and we don’t even know that they really exist. The perfect choice! Someone who can’t complain because no-one knows if he exists to complain. Of course, if we ever find they do exist, they could be pretty annoyed. Have you seen Starship Troopers? Predator 1 or 2? Let’s hope aliens never get discovered and come down to live amongst us – like in Alien Nation. Because then the scriptwriters will really be stuck.

Gaza - The dumb and the dumber

2008-12-30T11:58:00.006Z

For the past several days Israel has rained down rockets on Gaza, causing hundreds of deaths, including those of children. Israel justifies its actions as a response to continued rocket attacks on its civilians by armed members of Hamas, the party which rules Gaza. The stupidity and blindness of all the parties in this latest bout of the Israeli-Palestine conflict is painful to witness.

Why is Israel doing this? And why is it really doing this? The answer to the first question is: to put a stop to Hamas's actions of launching crude and indiscriminate rocket attacks on civilian areas of Israel. Which Hamas have undeniably been doing. The real reason however is to attempt to de-legitimise Hamas within Gaza and the wider Arab world. Both strategies are doomed to fail.

Morally, any government whose citizens suffer indiscriminate and murderous attacks is justified in attempting to destroy the aggresors. In fact they are duty-bound to do so. And this line has been put out by everyone from Tzipi Livni, Israel's current foreign minister, to internet commentators. The problem is that things are not quite as clear-cut as that.

Israel occupied Gaza in 1967 and hundreds of thousands of Palestinians have been crushed into that tiny area ever since. Following decades of uprisings and conflicts Israel withdrew its forces from Gaza in late 2005. In 2006 Hamas defeated the ruling Fatah party in Gaza elections, garnering 42% or so of the vote and becoming the elected representatives of Gaza. They consolidated their role in a power-struggle with Fatah's armed wing. The reaction from Israel, the US and the west was to immediately attempt to overthrow this democratically elected party, by arming and training Fatah fighters and then by a crushing blockade of Gaza itself. This is the key to today's bloodshed - the attempt at regime change of a democratically-elected government. It doesn't sit easily with the 'Bush doctrine' of overthrowing dictators and dealing with democrats.

In its charter Hamas openly calls for the destruction of Israel, denying its right to exist. It is therefore condemned by Israel and the US as a 'terrorist' organisation. History has shown us, however, that this word is a pretty loaded one. Today's terrorist is tomorrow's freedom fighter, interlocutor or even statesman. Its happened countless times, especially in Iraq and Afghanistan. So Hamas finds few friends in Western governments today. The Palestinian President, Mahmoud Abbas, condemns Hamas for creating this situation. But then he would - he is a Fatah leader, their rival, and is backed by the US as an alternative leader.

Here's the irony. When Israel had the chance to negotiate with Fatah, and its then leader Yasser Arafat, they did everything they could to undermine them and discredit him. Now the more secular, Arab nationalists of Fatah have been sidelined, Israel has to deal with the more Islamist Hamas. And now, of course, Israel wants Fatah back. Bit late now though, isn't it?

So Israel's devastating air attacks on Gaza aren't really about Hamas's rather puny rocket attacks, even allowing for the fear and casualties they cause amongst the Israeli civilians on the receiving end. It is about attempting to manipulate Palestinians' representatives. The theory is that Hamas will have been shown to have brought misery on the Palestinian people and so will be rejected by the Palestinian voters. It is a strategy absolutely guaranteed to fail. As indeed it will fail to bring security for Israelis.

Israel will have Palestinians, and Arabs, as their neighbours forever. Outside backers like the US will come and go, but the Palestinians will never go away. Hamas is indeed stupid and immoral for playing their part in the conflict, for deliberately murdering civilians and for marginalising pragmatic Palestinians. But Israel has also killed innocent civilians; they may have a slight moral edge in that it is clear Israeli jets to not deliberately target civilians, but there is no doubt whatsover that Israel's actions constitute 'collective punishment' on a civilian population, which is explicitly outlawed under international law, treaties and conventions. It is also perfectly obvious that air strikes in such as crowded area are absolutely guaranteed to produce civilian deaths.

Finally, Israel has left moderate Arab opinion swinging against them, and they're the ones they will eventually need to be able to strike any sort of deal. The short-termism of Israel's actions is so stupid and counter-productive it's unbelievable. Apparently there's an election coming up in Israel. I don't suppose the current attacks have anything to do with that, do they?