Between the Devil and the Deep Blue Bonus Season

Bonus season, the time of year when us mere mortals wish we had paid more attention in maths class and had become bankers instead of following our less financially rewarding path.

Every annum this causes controversy and this year it was kick-started by Royal Bank of Scotland (RBS) announcing chief executive Stephen Hester would receive an additional £1 million.

With RBS being 82 percent state-owned this resulted in an even stronger backlash from the banks shareholders, better known as the general public.

However, this will only be the tip of the proverbial iceberg as every other financial institution, including fellow state owned bank Lloyds TSB, reveals its bonuses.

The problem is there are two arguments here, one for the state owned banks, such as RBS, and another for the others who were not bailed out by the tax payer. Let us start with the state owned banks.

Despite both the Labour administration, who bailed out RBS and Lloyds in the first place, and the current ConDem government saying the tax payer will not play an active role as a shareholder, is there not a moral responsibility?

Mr Hester, as has been noted several times in recent days, is the worst paid bank chief executive in the country and yet was still entitled to receive nearly £1 million as a bonus.

Agree with the bailout or not, the tax payers of the UK are not just the majority shareholder in RBS, but given the option would be in total control, in an absolutely unbeatable position at an annual general meeting.

So while numerous RBS share holders are unemployed, unable to find work and struggling to make ends meet, the top dogs get more in a single year’s bonus than many will earn in a lifetime.

There have been many on the radical left who believe the RBS board should be paid in line with civil servant salaries.

Now while this may seem like a popular idea it is of cause ridiculous to suggest a bank executive should be paid £28,000 a year.

Not only would nobody be interested in taking the job, but the bank would struggle commercially, shares would become worthless and the public would never get their money back when the shares were eventually sold.

It is in the public interest to ensure RBS and Lloyds become successful again, assuming George Osborne does not take leave of his fiscally responsible mind and sell the shares at a loss.

What many would like to know is who in their right mind at RBS thought this was a good idea. It is about time the bailed out banks realised they are state owned and acted in a responsible way to their shareholders as they would normally do.

Instead, how about this for an alternative bonus plan for RBS. All the money to be paid out this year to all employees is not given to the employees, but to the government and is used to pay off the deficit.

Admittedly a couple of million quid is not going to make a huge difference, but is probably enough to buy a significant proportion of Greece at current market value.

At this point a round of applause is required for Mr Hester. He did the ethically and morally right thing by turning down the bonus, an action requiring a lot of guts from a man with the least enviable job in the financial services sector.

Now for the more difficult question of banker’s bonuses in general.

Although it looks as if the government is going to introduce legislation on the banks, many want to know why it has taken so long.

Let us begin with a little house keeping and some home truths. The recession was NOT caused by the budget deficit as the Tory’s would have people believed.

The UK owing so much money did not help and removed the safety net, but the initial problem was caused by the banks. Secondly, this government became electable as it had abandoned its conservative roots and became a caring party for the people.

Following the financial crash the people were livid with the financial services sector and wanted reform, but every government around the world has refused to tackle the problem.

Occupy Wall Street, Occupy London and others have been protesting for several months and battled court orders from various organisations for calling attention to something the people want.

This is understandably difficult. The banking sector is privately run and political parties of every stripe do not like interfering in the private sector, not to mention most political parties get themselves elected by cosying up to money bags in the city.

The fact governments do not like interfering in the private sector is in fact a reason why state owned banks like RBS are given such a loose reign when it comes to salary acquisition and bonuses.

It is also important to remember before the credit crunch the reason people complained about banker’s bonuses was motivated by envy, because everybody else was lucky if the boss gave them a bottle of cheap vino at Christmas.

The point here is despite a majority of the global population wanting regulation on bank practices and bonuses, the people are not being listened to.

Why should we be experiencing unprecedented public service and public sector jobs cuts, not to mention rising unemployment, repossessions and rising inflation, when the culprits for this have not been punished?

Not one banker has been put on trial for causing the financial crash, not one employee of a ratings agency has been called to account about the grading sub prime mortgages as safe and not one regulator has been punished for letting this situation get out of hand.

In fact the closest we have come to it is the rather British punishment of stripping the formally Sir Fred ‘The Shred’ Goodwin of is knighthood, embarrassing for him, but an action with little or no consequence.

Even this has been criticised for being a hysterical reaction aimed at a man who was only a tiny fraction of the problem.

Curbing bonuses, and excessive risk taking, requires a global solution. One country cannot make a difference here. If the UK turned around tomorrow and said no more bonuses and the splitting of commercial and investment banking operations, by Friday all financial institutions will have left the country.

It is time for premiers of every country to stop messing about and wasting the people time and actually punish these people for what the rest of us are enduring.

This is a hard decision, but almost every elected leader uses the phrase ‘will not duck the difficult decisions’, or something similar, at some point during a campaign.

To paraphrase the great Theodore Roosevelt nothing worth doing is ever easy, or, if you prefer you philosophy closer to home, as Irishman George Bernhard Shaw said ‘Nothing is worth doing unless the consequences may be serious’.

Should not all leaders take from these to legendary figures and realise fixing banking practices and bonuses is not going to be a walk in the park, but is something worth doing and worth doing well.

Perhaps they should take note of the rest of Teddy Roosevelt’s quotation. ‘I have never in my life envied a human being who led an easy life. I have envied a great many people who led difficult lives and led them well’.

Voters want action on the issues of the day, not laissez-faire.

Previewing 2012: Olympics and All That Jazz

Another year over, another year just beginning and what a year it promises to be. The US gears up for another Presidential election, London hosts the Olympics, the continuing uprising in the Middle East and the small matter of a global economic crisis.

This is not to say 2011 was dull. The Arab Spring, Autumn riots, the phone hacking scandal, economic woes, not to mention the deaths of bin Laden, Gaddafi and Kim Jong Il.

In the UK the Olympics will dominate the headlines in the run up to the summer. Chances are most stories will be of how nothing will be finished on time and how the games will be a disaster, only to find out everything will be fine in the end.

There will also be a Mayoral election in the capital this year with Johnson vs Livingston II (This Time It’s Political). It is hard to see anyone but blond Boris winning, mainly because the Labour party has not moved on in this area.

A member of the younger left wing generation may have stood a chance against a man who is not universally loved as mayor, but instead nominated Red Ken who could not beat BoJo the first time round.

In other political news it promises to be the toughest year yet for the Con-Dem coalition having already fallen out over banking regulation, student fees, voting reform, budget cuts and Europe.

A split-up before the next election is probably not on the cards, but Prime Minister David Cameron cannot afford too many fall outs with his deputy Nick Clegg, especially if it appears as if he is appeasing his back benchers.

Europe will be the key issue here following Cameron’s supposed veto of the EU treaty. Although it was good news for Euro-sceptics there is a question about the UK’s future influence in the common market.

What is needed is for politicians, both in Europe and around the world, to come together to find a solution to the crisis. If not all could find themselves out of office in the next election as people question why the situation is not improving.

Speaking of break-ups, there is still the question of Labour leader Ed Milliband. Despite some good performances he continues to slip in the opinions of the people while some commentators speculate about a potential replacement before the next election.

The question is what direction to go in. Some have called for more policy substance, while others say his image is not Prime Ministerial. The issue is the Labour party has no economic credibility and all Cameron has to do is say ‘inherited largest budget deficit from previous administration’ time and again.

Could this be the time for a true public leader? Would it be a good idea for Milliband to stand shoulder to shoulder with the protesters outside St Paul’s and with striking public sector workers?

Probably not as he would loose as many voters as he would gain, so prepare for either another year of second rate opposition or a policy deluge from the other side of the commons. Either way it is hard to see Milliband being ditched before 2015.

In other political news the US presidential election train will drag on for more months with the Republican primaries. Come November Obama will most likely win again, largely due to the ineptitude of the GOP candidates.

The greatest question is what will happen in the Congressional and Senatorial elections. Having lost the House of Representatives in the mid-terms Obama will be keen to claw back political power.

Predicating this is actually quite simple. If the economy improves then the people will swing back Democratic, if it continues to stagnate then the tea party and the Republicans will make significant gains.

A more interesting question across the pond is how much influence Sarah Palin will have in the elections. She is not a candidate and the tea party has lost some popularity, but she can still draw a crowd, although whether or not this is desirable is debatable.

Without question the largest political story of 2011 has been the Arab uprising in North Africa and the Middle East. After Tunisia it was Egypt in the headlines and as the year ends Tahrir Square was back in the news.

Syria, Bahrain and others will stay in the news for a while as people demand their democratic rights, protest against political oppression and military tactics. It is impossible to judge which direction these countries will go in, but Western military intervention is very unlikely.

China’s political system will be ever more in the spotlight this year as the West relies more and more on the only country with any money left. Also prepare for the continued rise of Brazil, India and Russia on the political scene.

Speaking of Russia Vladimir Putin will return the Kremlin this year, probably. This will be met by joy and despair both in Russia and the rest of the world. There is also likely to be major court cases involving Russian oligarchs including Chelsea owner Roman Abramovic.

North Korea’s ‘Dear Leader’ has also died and his successor Kim Jong Un will come to power in what is seen as the most unstable, unpredictable and closeted regime in the world. The US and Europe will be hoping this is an opportunity to curb nuclear ambitions in the country, but only time will tell.

Libya’s long running dictator, Colonel Gaddafi, was killed this year during the countries uprising. It will be interesting to see how popular revolutionary rebels organise themselves to bring democracy and stability to this oil rich country.
It is also worth keeping an eye on South America. Falkland Island based ships are being denied entry to ports on the continent and with vast Chinese investment and fewer economic problems. This may be the chance the likes of Brazil, Argentina and Venezuela are waiting for.

Problems with drug cartels will continue in Mexico and Columbia, although the FARC rebels influence is being eroded continually. This year hardly a week has gone by without another report from Mexico of shoot-outs in the street or mass graves. The US has pledged to help, but this is a problem likely to trundle on.

Japan has been in the news a lot this year following the earthquake, tsunami and subsequent nuclear incident. The big question this could raise this year is when a government elsewhere in the world dares to suggest nuclear power as a potential energy source again.

If the climate change conferences continue to yield no fruit then it may not be to long before government, probably on the quite, start to make plans for new reactors.

Away from the major news this will also be a big year in the world of entertainment and sport. The Olympics, Paralympics and European football championships all occur over the summer, F1 is set to return to the US, England rugby is in disarray and the astronomic rise of the Man City millionaires continues.

Racism has also raised its ugly head in the EPL with charges being brought against Liverpool’s Luis Suarez and Chelsea’s John Terry. Uruguayan international Suarez has been handed an eight game ban for racially abusing Manchester United’s Patrice Evra.

Terry will face criminal prosecution for similar accusations against QPR’s Anton Ferdinand, but has yet to find out if he will face any punishments from the FA. Expect renewed efforts on the Kick on Racism Out of Football campaign and tough punishments for Terry.

Rooney will also miss the first two games of Euro 2012 and this will probably be Fabio Capello’s last tournament in charge of the national team. Every Englander will be hoping for a performance befitting the quality of the team, but with group games against a resurgent France, Sweden (a country England have never beaten in a major tournament) and the co-hosts Ukraine this may be difficult.

In the world of entertainment there has been much speculation the 3D revolution may have been a damp squib. Nobody can complain about improvements in special effects, but it is important they do not get in the way of what film making is supposed to be about.

Over the next couple of years expect a change towards films using 3D as a true cinematic effect rather than just as a gimmick to increase box office revenues. Is it really possible to get independent film in 3D?

X-Factor has yet again been popular this year, but has struggled in the ratings war. Do not be surprised if 2012 sees the last series of the glorified karaoke show. Excited about The Iron Lady, being released soon, and The Great Gatsby, this time next year. Less excited about the apparent release of Texas Chainsaw Massacre in 3D.

In conclusion if 2012 is as exciting as 2011 there will be plenty to of column inches and news segments to fill. There are many stories yet to play out and many more still to come to light.

For now have a Merry Christmas, Happy Hanukah and a Happy New Year.

Amy Winehouse: Forever 27

All music fans were saddened to here of Amy Winehouse’s death on 23 July 2011, but as her birthday was 14 September 1983 her death took on a further significance than just the tragic passing of a young person.

She joined an elite group of musicians, Brian Jones of The Rolling Stones, Jimi Hendrix, Janis Joplin, Jim Morrison of The Doors and Kurt Cobain of Nirvana. All credited with changing music, all dying at the age of 27.

Undoubtedly her lifestyle and her musical success will keep her in this fabled company, but the slightly macabre question to ask is does she deserve it?

An Ivor Novello Award, five Grammy’s, three MTV Video Music Awards, four MTV Europe Music Awards, three World Music Awards, a Mercury Prize, a MOBO Award and a number one album in the UK would suggest she does.

This is far more commercial success than Jeff Buckley ever managed and if he had been 27, rather than drowning in Tennessee at the age of 30, this article would never have been written about him.

The issue here is Amy Winehouse is joining auspicious company and despite her fame and success her fellow 27 Club members were not just famous musicians, they changed the face of music forever.

Without Brian Jones there probably would never have been The Rolling Stones. It may have been Mick Jagger and Keith Richards who ended up with the credit, but it was Jones who started the band and was its driving force.

How different would the world be if this had not happened, one of the first British bands to foray into the African American world of Rhythm and Blues?

There is little to be said about Jimi Hendrix already not said. This man changed the way people viewed the electric guitar, his performance at Monetary and Woodstock are the stuff of legend.

Would any music fan want to even think about a world without Hendrix’s wailing guitar and the revolution he created in the playing of the instrument?

Janis Joplin was called the queen of rock and roll at a time when the liberation of women was at a peak.

Her life has taken on both a musical and a feminist significance which would be impossible to replace.

The brooding lyrics and melodies of The Doors created what is regarded as one of the greatest front men of all time in Jim Morrison.

It may be The Doors people remember, rather than Morrison himself, but the man has come to define a period in American history along with Hendrix.

For many younger readers it may be Kurt Cobain who holds the most significance, creating a musical revolution out the angst people felt following the 1980s.

Not only did Nirvana jump start the musical career of Dave Grohl, but the music, image and lifestyle of the grunge scene led to the mini music revolution of the 1990s and the early years of the new millennium.

Reading this you start to get the impression these five people were slightly more important to the progression of music as a whole than Winehouse will ever achieve. This is not to say there are not similarities.

The lifestyle choice to begin with is certainly similar over the entire group. The drug binges of Jones, Hendrix and Morrison are what could be called very rock and roll, Cobain was a noted heroin addict and Joplin’s death was always presumed to be a heroin overdoes.

Along with fellow bad-boy of rock, The Libertines Pete Doherty, her party antics have been noted for years often making more front page news than Doherty’s due to her commercial success.

The live fast die young attitude has long been a feature of rock music and in this respect Winehouse is certainly in good company.

Contrary to some people’s opinion, the younger public’s adoration of these people is not about drugs or a desire for the lifestyle, it is an appreciation for their music and a moment they speak to.

The commercial and critical success would certainly suggest she spoke to a moment and her musical and fashion style has certainly had influence.

Her look and the jazz styling of her first album, Frank, was certainly an appreciated change of pace from the generic female fronted pop being produced both in the US and UK.

Back to Black ditched the Jazz and took influence from one of the greatest eras in female fronted music, the 60s and 70s. Comparable to Joplin, maybe not, but credit where credit is due.

However, there are certainly many issues with this. Her music, unlike Hendrix and Cobain, was not revolutionary, it had kind of been done before. It was good and her voice extraordinary, but it had been done.

Drink and drugs seemed to become her entire world and she appeared like a mate who you know cannot look after themselves when they have had a few.

Addiction also led her to commit the greatest sin a musician can, they affected her live performance and musical talent.

Since the release of Back to Black media outlets have almost been awash with reports of her turning up late, not turning up at all and being booed for her not being able to sing.

Once she even disappeared during a show leaving her backup singers to complete the set.

Although it would be hypocritical to say the other members of the 27 Club did not let the drink and drugs affect them musically, Morrison certainly was noted for poor onstage behaviour, but is it really the same?

It is fair to say Winehouse never got arrested for indecent exposure on stage, something which Morrison certainly cannot claim to have avoided.

There is still something lurking, suggesting her inevitable inclusion in this band of legends is somehow unjustified, and her inclusion is inevitable.

It is impossible to live a life the way she lived her life and not be. Jeff Buckley (30), Tupac Skakur (25) and Keith Moon of The Who (33) all have honorary inclusion so how can she not have it legitimately.

The question here is not of whether or not she is a member of the Forever 27, but whether or not it is somehow unjust she be elevated to a pedestal of rock music martyrdom with these stars.

Ask yourself one question. Does the Winehouse brand belong side-by-side with the likes of Jones, Hendrix, Joplin, Morrison and Cobain in terms of a long lasting musical influence, influences that have and will continue to be the driving force behind every new artist and musician to come?

Bin Laden: Assassination or Mercy Killing

For the last ten years Osama bin Laden has been public enemy number one, the face of the enemy in the war on terror, Islamic extremism and a man responsible for thousands of innocent deaths, then you wake up one morning and he is dead.

Was it right an American special forces Navy Seal shot him dead in his compound in Pakistan, or should more effort have been made to take this man and publicly put him on trial for his atrocities?

President George W Bush said in the aftermath of 9/11 he wanted this man dead or alive. At the time the media made more than a few jokes about yet another cowboy metaphor from the Texan president. In fact this clichéd sentiment was closer to the trust than anybody believed.

It is fair to say all those who stand against Islamic extremism and international terrorism are pleased to see bin Laden out of the picture, but there have been more than a few raised eyebrows about the fact he was shot, killed and buried with no chance of a trail taking place.

As citizens of developed nations we are taught to believe in our fair and balanced legal system, innocence until guilt is proven, the right to a fair trial and the concept of due process.

Saddam Hussein, Slobodan Milošević and Radovan Karadžić have all faced war crimes tribunals in the Netherlands following the atrocities they carried out in Iraq, Yugoslavia and Bosnia, so why not bin Laden.

The total number of people bin Laden has killed, directly or indirectly, will probably never truly be known, but then again the same can be said for all the aforementioned war criminals.

Under normal circumstances the perfect outcome for this would have been the capture of bin Laden, a public trial and sentencing for his crimes. Unfortunately, this just raises further questions.

Where would this trial be carried out, what real evidence is there, what kind of jury could be empanelled and how can he be sentenced?

Are those complaining about the killing of bin Laden really claiming he should have been put out in front of a twelve person jury in New York City, and would he have received a life sentence or faced the death penalty?

A public jury in New York could never have reached an impartial verdict on this man, a life sentence would have been a waste of money and he has already faced his death sentence.

It is also important to remember this man was an independent citizen, not a recognised head of state. The rest of the world may not have like Hussein, but he was the leader of Iraq.
War crimes trials in The Hague are reserved for heads of state, and their colleges, who have oppressed, tortured and killed innocent members of their population. Under no circumstances does bin Laden fit any of these criteria and so the only way it would work would be for him to face a normal criminal trial under a terrorism act.

A major problem arising here is his trial would not have been an acceptable piece of justice and would more than likely have served as a target or monument in itself for jihadist Muslims around the world. The fact the Americans did not want him to be martyred was the primary reason for burying him at sea instead of in a land-based grave.

The fact which goes against the grain the most in this situation is the fact he was unarmed at the time of his killing. He made no effort to surrender (hardly a surprise) and apparently there were weapons near at hand (again not shocking).

As the Archbishop of Canterbury Dr Rowan Williams said the killing of an unarmed man leaves “a very uncomfortable feeling”. It is hardwired in to every decent persons mind to not kill an unarmed person purely because it is morally and ethically wrong.

This argument has been used by those questioning the tactics used by the Americans during this raid, but strangely this has never been raised about any other terrorist killing, although admittedly none have ever been this high profile.

The public would never shed a tear (admittedly nobody cried over the death of bin Laden) over the killing of an unarmed drug lord in Columbia, a renegade general in Africa or a murderer in any other country. So why is this issue so high on the public agenda now?

Is it simply because of the high profile nature of the target, or is it because this man has been top of the FBI most wanted list for more than a decade now?

It is important in this situation to remember the situation and the man we are dealing with. This was not a crazed leader oppressing his people or a dictator throwing opposition leaders in slave labour camps. He was a terrorist at the head of a small group of disillusioned Muslims and a target of war.

Many things during the war on terror have disgusted people including the torture of prisoners at Abu Ghraib and the indefinite detention of terror suspects at Guantanamo Bay.

These things are unacceptable and avoidable, a night raid of a compound in Pakistan and the subsequent killing of a terrorist leader is not.

Could this situation have been handled better, maybe, and would it have been better for him to stand trial for what he has done in accordance with developed legal systems, certainly, but nobody opposed to the killing has been able to explain how it could have been achieved.

The world is a better place without this man and although his death will probably do nothing to quell the resolve of his followers it may just be one of the final coffin nails.

On a personal note I was pleased to see his body was buried in accordance with Islamic customs. It was vital for the world to see the Americans treat an Islamic body with the respect it deserves in accordance with the customs of the religion.