The Inquisitive Panda

Between the Devil and the Deep Blue Bonus Season

2012-02-01T13:29:00.003Z

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

2011-12-22T15:32:00.002Z

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

2011-07-26T22:45:00.003+01:00

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

2011-05-11T15:39:00.002+01:00

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.

Riots in Paradise – Overnight Democracy

2011-02-07T19:02:00.002Z

Many, if not all, of us have been surprised by the protests now seemingly sweeping across North Africa and the Middle East with the people calling for freedom of speech and democracy, but how effective will this be and what does it mean for the world?

Surely nothing bad can come out of pro-democracy rallies in countries where the leaders are de facto dictators? Many rulers in these countries have been in power for over 20 years, imprison political opponents and oppress their own people.

Calls for free elections, freedom of speech, association and press are all issues the West has been keen to promote in Islamic nations as part of the war on terror. Democracy is good, personal freedom is good and the people standing up to dictators is good, but what will be the eventual result of these protests?

In Egypt the major complaint has been President Mubarak sacking his cabinet, but refusing to stand down himself. In Tunisia the new government, formed after President Ben Ali fled the country, includes many politicians closely associated with the ousted administration.

It is true democracy takes time. Elections in other parts of the world, such as Iraq and Afghanistan, have taken months to resolve, been subject to voter fraud and have produced questionable results. These problems are something the people of Tunisia and Egypt will be keen to avoid.

These are not war torn countries. For years they have been led by acceptable dictators. Any voting problems will undermine what the protests were about and not bring the changes desired.

This means it may take months, or possibly years, before free and fair elections are held in these countries to ensure they are indeed free and fair.

In the mean time the people will have to remain strong to ensure their ideology is not drowned out by anther de facto dictator simply taking over, but there are major problems in these countries.

Mass unemployment was the catalyst for Tunisia. This is not an issue likely to disappear overnight. A strong government and foreign investment will be required to solve this problem and it would be all too easy for Tunisians to fall back into the usual rotation only to realise down the line they have achieved nothing.

Hypothetical time. The protests are successful across Tunisia, Algeria, Egypt and other parts of the arab world. In the near future political parties are formed and there is a general election is held which is externally moderated and appears to go off without a hitch. Who is likely to win?

This is where we run into a problem. The West was never keen on some of these leaders, but it suited us to ignore the dictatorial tendencies to have them on our side. The new guys may not be on our side and could in fact stand for things we really do not like.
Is it completely out of the realm of possibility these elections result in Islamic extremists taking over in these countries. The hot beds of extremism are in the poorest areas. A new political leader promising a strong Islamic state to the poor and needy may sound like a fantastic idea to the people, but not to others.

We are told to have faith in the people and a belief in what democracy can give us, a future we get to pick. These are important countries in an area everyone is dependent on.

Egypt, Tunisia and Algeria are important trading points from North Africa to Europe, the Americas and Asia for, among other things, oil and natural gas. There is the possibility of this spreading to the Middle East, protests have already been reported in Yemen about the same issues.

Maybe, just maybe, the people will make the right choices and elect a progressive government in these countries to improve the situation in Islamic Africa and the Middle East. The West needs true allies in these areas, not these dog and pony show governments we call allies.

Anybody want to call the odds on which way this will go? Entire peoples are looking for change in countries unfamiliar with what it involves. Will they vote for strong Islamic state, or global partner?

Bankers Refusal

2011-01-12T14:50:00.002Z

Welcome to 2011. A new year, a new start, but the same old problems. Financial regulation and bankers bonuses will be high on the agenda this year across the world as governments of all stripes try to put the recession behind them.

Bankers have been the evil face of the recession, with billions in taxpayer’s money being funnelled into failing organisations across the world, but it has proved difficult for any government to make headway in regulating both the actions taken and the bonuses given by financial institutions.

Why is this? Most, if not all, people agree the actions of the bankers involved in sub-prime mortgages and high-risk investment strategies were, at the very least, a catalyst for the problems now being seen world wide. So how come no government has been able, as yet, to heavily crack down on them.

Take the UK as an example. Currently the new coalition government is rolling out its austerity measures with the hope of eliminating the deficit in five years. This has included slashing the budget of almost every government department, a hike in university tuition fees and an increase in VAT to 20%.

Essentially what has happened is the ordinary people have to pay off national debt, put up with public service cuts and pay more for everyday goods because of a problem caused by the banks.

It is true large budget deficits are not good for any economy. They reduce business confidence, discourage foreign investment and can lead to unemployment and high inflation.

Financial services are also vital to the economy. The countries most affected by the credit crunch all have, or maybe had, large financial sectors, generating huge quantities of money, tax revenues and investment.

The question continually arising here is why the banks continually refused to take responsibility for what they caused and accept the part they should play in helping countries out of their current predicaments.

This time last year The Royal Bank of Scotland, which received a huge bailout from the government, defended its bonus strategy saying it had to attract and keep top bankers. Many people, myself included, criticised them for this arguing its current predicament showed they had no banking talent to keep.

On 11 January this year the new head of Barclays Bob Diamond said it was time for the public to stop blaming the banks and bankers and allow them to get on with their job as they see fit.

Their economic importance aside, this is just arrogance of the highest nature. A lack of regulation allowed the banks to cripple themselves, and every global economy, because of unnecessary risk taking, and the bonuses they are still receiving are several times the national average income.

Let us face facts, bankers are not badly off, and while people are all in favour of annual bonuses being paid to those who have earned them through hard work, it is ridiculous to have them written into a contract.

The Oxford English Dictionary defines a bonus as a sum of money added to wages for good performance or an unexpected extra benefit. How come etymologists understand more about how benefits should be paid than bankers?

So far this has been a bit abstract and a repetition of what most of the general public feels about bankers currently, so lets have a bit of perspective.

Public transport ticket prices in London have risen 8% on 2010 prices. Although this might not sound like much a monthly tavelcard for all zones in London cost around £170. Per month they now cost £13.60 more, £163 more annually. A 2.5% increase in VAT to 20% is a regressive tax as it cost low income earners more in percentage terms than high income earners. University fees will now be doubled to slash the government budget for higher education, but this means children from lower income families will be put off entering higher education due to the debt levels they will incur.

At the same time bankers still have bonuses written into contracts, many of which would allow them to buy and run a luxury car, write off any price increase and send their child to university without even having to break into their basic salary.

This issue has always had the second thread of regulation. The political right will tell you increased regulation is bad for business, while the left tells you less regulation means organisations will not act responsibly. As with most things spilt along ideological grounds, both are wrong.

No business will act responsibly unless they are forced to. Privet companies, as utility companies have shown us, act only to make a profit. However, if you hem in companies to act a certain way it takes any fluidity out of the market and punishes innovation.

Again we must look back at the causes. Excessive risk taking, with the sole aim of making a larger profit, caused a crisis which crippled almost every economy in the world.

For bank now read power station. If a power station had burnt down or exploded because the company was trying to make power faster to make more profit would the operators still be running the company. Of cause not, they would be serving prison sentences for criminal negligence and the inspection procedures at all power station would have been ramped up.

What if an international delivery company had lost several thousand packages? This would not have led to criminal prosecution, but would certainly have led to a revamp of the process and additional supervision.

Governments have issues with attacking banks. They are generally very powerful organisations which have high stakes in national debt, generate huge tax revenues and encourage investment in the country.

One of the major fears has always been banks leaving the country if increased regulations were implied or bonuses were taxed leaving the country in an even worse state.

However there are ways of dealing with both the regulatory issues and bonus culture without damaging the banks.

With bonuses there should not be a tax, plain and simple. The bankers will receive their bonuses in shares in the bank. This would mean their bonus value is directly linked to the performance of the bank. This has been thrown around before, but has never been implemented or properly discussed and no reasons have been given as to why this would not work.

In terms of regulation many people would argue it is time for the bankers to get off their high horse, admit they were to blame and to stop acting like petulant children.

No other industry in the world would expect to cause a global crisis and not get punished, and the banks have not been punished. Yes, we understand the burdens of regulation, but a lack of regulation allowed this to happen so surely it is the only option.

Problems do arise though. As already mentioned banks can move abroad to countries with lesser regulation causing a sudden plunge in tax revenues and investment, not a good thing for countries limping out of recession.

What needs to happen is a global deal on how to regulate the banks. This was a global crisis and as such requires a global solution, not 50 different ones varying from country to country.

The nuances of any deal are more difficult to explain, but independent auditing of records, stronger penalties for those who take excessive risk and an end to sub-prime lending are obvious places to start.

It is time the banks realise they work not just for themselves, but for the people, understand if it was not for intervention many of them would no longer exist and accept their greed caused the problems everyone is now facing, including unemployment, rising prices and public spending cuts.

Cyrano de Bergerac said “The insufferable arrogance of human beings to think that nature was made solely for their benefit, as if it was conceivable that the sun had been set afire merely to ripen men's apples and head their cabbages.” We appreciate the role the banks play, but nobody likes to pay for other peoples mistakes, and it was the banks mistakes.

To have the arrogance to turn around afterwards and claim you should be left alone with no punishment is an insult to the millions of people who now struggle to find work, cannot pay the mortgage and find it impossible to get a loan from a bank bailed out by their money

What the public feel now is not malice, but utter disappointment and frustration at the lack of action taken and the problems they must now face all because the banks want to get back to making obscene profits.

Nobody else in the world would be able to get away with doing what the bankers have done or as Napoleon put it “Never ascribe to malice that which can adequately be explained by incompetence”.

By the way, this is not a new issue. Chief Justice of the US Supreme Court Earl Warren once said “I hate banks. They do nothing positive for anybody except take care of themselves. They're first in with their fees and first out when there's trouble.”

Previewing 2011

2010-12-30T16:00:00.003Z

With 2010 drawing to a close it is very easy to look back and reminisce about what has been an extraordinary year across the world and forget we are still heading into the unknown in many areas of the world in 2011.

Floods in Pakistan, the rescue of the Chilean miners, the Deepwater Horizon explosion, a change of government in the UK and terrorist attacks in Moscow and Sweden have all made front page news.

Elsewhere President Obama has faced a backlash against his healthcare reforms, a major factor in the Democrats poor showing in the mid-term elections. Afghanistan and Iraq both held elections this year, but due to widespread election fraud the results are still unknown.

The result of the presidential election in the Ivory Coast looks set to plunge the country into civil war at a moments notice while there was rioting on the streets of Kingston, Jamaica over the deportation of suspected drug dealer and gun runner Christopher ‘Dudas’ Coke.

This is not to mention the worsening situation between Israel and Palestine, the global economic crisis and the increased tensions between North and South Korea.

So what can we expect in 2011? Of cause many things are unpredictable, but there are many things on the political, economic and business scene which may see large changes in the next year.

The Conservative-Liberal Democrat coalition in the UK is still looking strong, but cracks are starting to show. The student fees protest and the recent covert recordings showing Lib Dem cabinet members true feelings about Tory colleagues has shown it may not be all plain sailing.

In the New Year the public will face a referendum on the alternative voting system, a key Lib Dem campaign proposal. A failure on this could cause many problems amongst backbenchers uneasy about the coalition. It currently looks unlikely such a proposal will pass, but the result depends greatly on how the Lib Dems are allowed to promote the issue, while any gagging by the Tory’s will defiantly cause problems for the coalition.

Spending cuts will also start in 2011 and could certainly lead to a rise in protests in London and across the UK while police tactics, such as ketteling, will certainly be called into question.

Europe is another issue which could cause problems on the political scene in the UK with many Conservatives being notably Euro-sceptic, while all other sides of the house are on the other side of the issue. Anything major to do with European involvement or spending will undoubtedly cause problems for the UK government.

It is not all bad though. We have Will and Kate’s wedding to look forward to and 2011 means it is only a year until the London Olympics. This means commemorative plates and news stories about how unprepared the venues are.

Across the Atlantic they will be heading into the presidential primary season in January 2012 with Obama still under pressure regarding the US economy and his healthcare reforms. It is not all good for the Republicans though. The tea party movement has split the conservative right in two and front runners for the Republican nomination will face competition from a tea party candidate. Will it be Sarah Palin? In the rest of the world we will be keeping our fingers crossed it is not.

Looking forward to the presidential elections in 2012 it is fair to say Obama is in trouble. However, there is an easy way out. If the economy does start to improve in America he, and his economic policies, will be vindicated making it easier for him to get re-elected. If the US economy does not improve he will be out of a job, and if it has not started to improve by 2012 maybe he should be.

Fallout from 2010 will also figure heavily in the news this year, most notably for BP. After the explosion on Deepwater Horizon all drilling was suspended in the Gulf of Mexico. This situation cannot continue indefinitely and there will certainly be hearings into what exactly went wrong resulting in repercussions for BP and the global oil and gas industry.

How serious these problems are in the long run depend entirely on the findings of any investigation, but BP certainly are going to face a tough year.

The banking industry too will look at 2011 as a year with many potential pitfalls. New banking regulations are going to come into force across the world with many people still complaining about the levels of bonuses still available and the lack of any punishment for the banks regarding there part in the global recession.

These incoming regulations will force banks to rethink locations and operations resulting in some countries potentially losing the lucrative financial sector and the jobs associated with it.

One of the most noticeable elements of the financial crisis has been the companies going bankrupt. From Lehman Brothers to travel agents companies closing down have been a problem. There will certainly be more casualties in the coming year, the only question is where and when.

Wikileaks has shot to fame this year amongst the general public after a series of high profile leaks regarding the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan and cables reporting the personal views of the US and other diplomatic figures across the world. This has culminated in founder Julian Assange being arrested regarding sex offences in Sweden.

The sex offences will likely get little press but this does leave potential for him to be extradited to America to face charges over the leaked material. Assange himself could face jail time in the US, but not very much. If he is forced to name his source there could be a very high profile charge made resulting in serious jail time.

Elsewhere in the world there are numerous issues to keep an eye on. Problems following the presidential election in the Ivory Coast are now being reported as being close to genocide. The UN has already declared the winner of the election as challenger Alassane Outtara, but incumbent Laurent Gbagbo has refused to stand down.

This is not a new issue in many African states, but the UN has a poor reputation in the region following issues with peacekeepers, or a lack of, in Sudan and Rwanda. They will be keen for this situation not to escalate and for any UN forces to play a positive role.

Former Soviet countries in Asia are also facing many problems. Earlier this year Kyrgyzstan saw rioting and killing on the streets as the people ousted its now former president. This ended up with thousands of refugees fleeing the country and reports of human rights violations across the country. Although the tensions seem to have died down there are still various problems in this area of the world which will undoubtedly flare up again in the next 12 months.

One issue certain to dominate the news in the coming year is the global economic recovery, or lack of it. In the west, most notably the EU bloc and America, the news will be dominated by rising unemployment, spending cuts and stagnant growth figures, but there is another side to this story which is also likely to make headlines.

Brazil, Russia, India and China, or the BRIC economies, have shown spectacular growth while the established economies have shrunk or stagnated. This is certainly not a passing trend. Over the course of 2011, and the rest of this decade, these countries are set to become amongst the most powerful in the world.

Russia, India and Brazil do have one huge advantage, they are not seen as a threat in the same way China is. However, China is by far the most powerful of these countries and America especially is hoping for a lot of Chinese cooperation on a number of issues such as trade, patent observation and North Korea.

North Korea has had an especially odd year with leader Kim Jong Il naming his successor and later in the year choosing to shell a South Korean island. This sabre rattling on the Korean peninsular is not new, in fact quite the opposite, but as always it has the potential to boil over into direct conflict between the two nations forcing America, Japan and China to take sides.

There is a belief this is unlikely to happen as North Korea has become increasingly marginalised by its closest ally China and is desperate for any legitimacy on the international stage, but the South is not above throwing the first punch forcing the North to retaliate.

South America and Africa to are still dealing with tensions amongst themselves and other nations. The UK and Argentina are still arguing over Falklands oil, an issue unlikely to cause any problems in the short term. In Africa problems in Sudan are likely to come to a head this year following elections this year and a proposed annexing of the south for its oil. This could lead to further loss of life and renewed waves of refugees heading for Darfur.

As with any year there are many potential problems with the potential to dominate the headlines, but it is likely to be the unforeseen ending up being the story. Natural disasters such as earthquakes and floods are still a major risk to countries and, as has been seen in Pakistan this year, can cause untold suffering to million along with massive loss of life.

There is, as always, the hope of a better 2011 for all of us with the problems we currently face fading away. The best wishes to all of you for 2011.

Wikileaks: Friend or Foe?

2010-11-29T22:58:00.002Z

Controversial whistle-blowing website Wikileaks has yet again attracted the wrath of the international diplomatic community by, this time, releasing cables reporting what the personal views of officials.

This follows the equally contentious leaks of classified information about civilian casualties in Iraq and Afghanistan and the video of a US helicopter killing reporters from Reuters.

Political leaders, and more than a few members of the general public, have condemned the website and its founder, Australian Julian Assange, for endangering servicemen across the world and have described its latest coup as an attack on the international community.

But how true is this and have the disclosures really put anybody at risk?

The whole point of journalism throughout history has been to uncover the truth and question what we are told by our leaders. Admittedly these documents have been discovered through and illegal breach of national security, but the public have a right to know what is going on in the world behind the closed doors of power.

The revelations about civilian casualties in Iraq and Afghanistan can hardly be called surprising. It was assumed by pretty much everyone, especially after the atrocities at Abu Ghraib ahs been discovered, that this was going on and not being reported.

Cable Gate, as it is being called on the Wikileaks website, is more embarrassing than controversial and has revealed some very interesting information including the possibility of China abandoning international relations with North Korea.

Yes, the US State Department is not going to be happy about the world knowing it thinks French President Nicolas Sarkozy is said “thin-skinned and authoritarian” or about its attempts to spy on United Nation officials, but what are you doing putting these things down in writing anyway. Did the US Government learn nothing from Watergate?

Maybe it is naive of the public to assume high-level officials have personal views of each other. How many of us have poked fun at Sarkozy or Italian President Silvio Berlusconi?

One of the major leaks involves the prompting by governments in the Arab world calling for the US to attack Iran. This was a view put around quite a lot in the journalistic world after 2003 when many believed the invasion of Iraq was a pretext was an invasion of Iran.

Wikileaks first came to prominence earlier this year when they released a video of a US Army Apache helicopter engaging with suspected terrorists in New Baghdad, but instead ended up killing around 12 people, including two reporters form Reuters, and injuring two children.

What was most shocking about this was not so much what happened, although it was undoubtedly terrible, but the video game attitude adopted by the men inside the helicopter.

No matter how much respect you have for the armed services and the vital work they do, the western world is supposed to stand for freedom. It is certainly debatable how much we can stand for freedom when soldiers start shooting at civilians without any provocation.

It is surely flat-out hypocrisy for the US, and world leaders, to condemn the release of this material just because they do not like the content.

George Orwell wrote “political language is designed t make lies sound truthful and murder respectable, and to give the appearance of solidarity to pure wind.”

Maybe it is time for the ‘leaders of the free world’ to start acting like they live in a free world and accept these revelations are not revelations at all, but are part of what people hate about our governments.

The people have a right to know how their armed services are acting around the world, to not have their leaders hide behind diplomatic confidentiality when they are making sarcastic remarks about other leaders and to know the direction the world is heading in terms of diplomatic relations.

Shadow Cabinet Miscalculations

2010-10-09T13:27:00.003+01:00

There were really only two questions in the aftermath of Ed Millband’s election as Labour leader. Would David stay in front line politics and who would end up with the challenging task of opposing George Osborne’s cuts as Shadow Chancellor?

Ed Balls had to be top of most people’s lists serving as Gordon Brown’s right hand man at the treasury and being rewarded with a front line cabinet post during his ill fated premiership.

However, when his wife Yvette Copper topped the cabinet vote many started to suggest Balls would be overlooked.

It turned out we were all wrong. Alan Johnson, the former Home Secretary, came out for arguably the second most important job in opposition.

Surprising choice yes, but as this shock new choice was analysed many started to believe this was in fact a stroke of genius by the young new leader.

His humble background as a postman and union leader are certainly in stark contrast to his opposite numbers background which was referred to by many Labour MP’s as aristocratic.

Having served as health and education secretary during the Labour administration he is certainly more used to spending rather than saving cash and his lack of economic background may hinder him in a knock-down-drag-out with Osborne.

Like him or loath him, Brown was a gifted economist with the facts at his finger tips and the type of analytical mind suited to commons debates over financial issues, think back to Brown challenging Nigel Lawson as stand in Shadow Chancellor in 1988.

There are of course other issues here as well. Balls has a reputation for confrontation, admirably and useful maybe in defending any Labour stance in protesting any spending cuts as is his economic and treasury experience, but are these as useful as Shadow Home Secretary?

Theresa May is not universally loved (understatement of the century). She is a bit too far to the right for any Labour or Liberal Democrat supporter and, although many Conservative backbenchers may love her, a lot of moderate Tory’s have their reservations.

Under these circumstances is not Balls exactly the right man to take her on? His combative nature and more left wing stance could contrast May in exactly the right way.

Although not as widely reported as the shock of Johnson’s new position, the other shock appointment was making Copper Shadow Foreign Secretary.

If this had been the story of the day the public’s reaction o this would have surely been similar to when Baroness Ashton was elected as the EU’s foreign representative.

Has she any foreign policy experience? She has served in the cabinet as Chief Secretary to the Treasury and Work and Pensions secretary.

Admirable and important positions granted, but more economics based than foreign relations.

It is certainly true the Conservatives have said they will continue British presence in Afghanistan on the basis of a coordinated pull-out with the US making it one of the few points where there is little tension between the parties.

She is, however, being asked to take on William Hague, one of the most experienced politicians in the house. At what level is she going to be able to highlight the differences so important in making Labour electable again?

But let us play out a scenario. The coalition does not go well or the public are so furious about the spending cuts the Labour party are re-elected in 2015 and Ed Milliband becomes our new Prime Minister.

Are we to believe we will have a Chancellor with no economics background, a Foreign Secretary with no diplomatic experience and a Home Secretary more comfortable in combat than in forcing social change?

Yes, you can reshuffle a Shadow Cabinet, although there is the risk it will look like an initial miscalculation and be seen as a sign of chaos.

Admittedly on closer inspection Johnson and Balls may seem well suited to these new roles, with the possibility of Balls taking over later at the Treasury, and Cooper may turn out to be a fantastic states…person.

There will, however, remain fears that Milliband has made a big miscalculation not equipping the Shadow Cabinet with the best people for the roles but instead showing a transparent line of party unity.

Papal Visit: Yes or No?

2010-09-16T00:43:00.003+01:00

When the Vatican announced Pope Benedict XVI announced he was to make his first state visit to the UK it was met with, what could be put mildly as, mixed emotions.

On one side of the argument were the many Catholic citizens of the UK’s delight that the head of their church would be visiting them, and on the other side the many people who view his stance on abortion, contraceptives, gay rights and stem cell research as appalling

Not to mention the child abuse scandals that has done some much damage to the church’s reputation in recent years.

But is it even right to protest at the visit of a religious figurehead. Admittedly it would be hard to imagine these protest if the Dali Lama was to visit.

However, as Catholics make up a significant percentage of the population both in the UK and across the globe he does have a far greater reach than any other head-of-state.

This does, in theory at least, make him a very powerful man. But is he as powerful as we think.

The Papacy no longer has the political clout it did in the days of Machiavelli and the Medici popes. His influence stems no further than to the extent of his congregation. Do the people seriously believe if a strict Catholic came to power in a Western nation they would instantly implement a ban on condoms, abortions and homosexuality?

Yes it is hard to argue against the fact in the modern world he’s view are outdated. It is wrong to discriminate against people because they are gay, millions of lives would be saved through AIDS prevention if condoms could be distributed in the third world and there is a possibility stem cell research may discover cures for terrible diseases.

Few would argue against a full investigation into the child abuse scandals alleged to have taken place in the Catholic Church across the world. These horrific crimes have damaged the lives of countless children and have caused as yet untold damage to the church.

It is however wrong of us to lump all Catholics in together. Hardly any Catholics are child abusers, and a large population would argue those who are guilty of the crimes are not actually Catholic.

Catholics believe that man is not saved by faith alone, that a life must be backed up by good works. There are catholic charities in Africa doing tremendous work, but an outmoded religious doctrine regarding artificial contraception is killing millions of Africans.

The ethical struggle surrounding stem cell research is certainly understandable. But is not there something in The Bible about easing the suffering of others?

Homosexuality is also a tricky issue as it is based on a religious belief that it is wrong. But, Catholics have accepted aspects of modern Western pluralism. Catholic churches are now on the same streets as Synagogues and Mosques.

We are not all the same. We are not all Catholic. Is it not time the homophobia that exists in the church went the same way as eating fish on a Friday.

Yes the Catholic Church needs to modernise but so do the protestors beliefs that it stands for all that is wrong in the world.

Protest the child abuse without question. It is a tragedy and should be dealt with properly, not behind the closed doors of the Vatican. But, maybe it is time for us to accept the limitations of the Popes powers as a world leader.

The Saga Continues – MPs Expenses, the Report and Prosecution

2010-02-14T18:15:00.004Z

The MPs expenses saga may be nearing conclusion with the Crown Prosecution Services announcing three Labour members and a Tory peer will face criminal charges.

Elliot Morley, Jim Devine, David Chaytor and Lord Hanningfield could face up to seven years in prison under the Theft Act.

Labour peer Lord Clark has escaped any further action with evidence being insufficient to bring any further charges.

Many people reading into the claims they made may think these seem like some of the more minor offences which have come to light since The Daily Telegraph first broke the story last spring.

Livingston MP Jim Devine has been the most vocal about this saying he is bewildered as to why he has been singled out after claiming £3,240 for cleaning services and £5,505 for stationary.

Lord Hanningfield, who resigned as leader of Essex County Council in the aftermath of this announcement, allegedly abused the over night allowance granted to him as a member of the House of Lords.

Mr Chaytor, MP for Bury North, seems to be similarly small fry with £1,950 for IT services and £18,000 in rent.

Scunthorpe representative Mr Morley does seem more along the lines the public may have expected using £30,000 of tax payer’s money on mortgage interest repayments.

Director of Public Prosecutions Keir Starmer said prosecutors had decided there was sufficient evidence and it was "in the public interest to charge the individuals concerned".

Devine, Morley and Chaytor released a joint statement saying “We totally refute any charges that we have committed an offence and we will defend our position robustly.”

The public certainly wanted some kind of criminal action in the aftermath of a scandal which threatened to destroy all faith in politics, however if an example was going to be made four relatively minor backbench MPs are hardly going to cut-it.

The announcement from the CPS came on the heels of Sir Thomas Legg’s report into the ‘deeply flawed’ expenses system.

Members of the general public will be disappointed, although not entirely shocked given the revelations in the last year, that the report cost £1.16 million while asking MPs to repay around £1.25 million.

Hardly what you would call a massive net gain for a country trying to cut costs. He must have gone to the expensive coffee place.

Stevenage Labour MP Barbara Follet was the hardest hit by the Legg Report having to repay £42,000 in erroneous claims.

She claimed over £34,000 for security patrols around her home in London and nearly £3,000 for home insurance. It is not your imagination, either those two numbers do not make any sense or she is being massively over quoted for he contents insurance.

Either way she clearly does not have what it takes to cut it in professional politics.

The Legg report laid out new examples of dishonest claims and also gave details of those exonerated of any wrongdoing.

Many have however criticised the former civil servants report claiming the arithmetic was questionable, his logic flawed and for devising the controversial retrospective repayments.

All three party leaders were asked to pay back money with the Prime Minister out in front with nearly £14,000 in cleaning bills.

If Brown, Cameron or Clegg had been singled out for criminal action this story would have been exciting but surely nobody honestly thought they would be dragged through this with such an imminent election.

Of cause this will at least hold the headlines for a little longer. Home Secretary Alan Johnson has already gone on record saying the four accused should face a trial and has tried to dissuade them for invoking parliamentary privilege to dodge any embarrassing revelations.

It is also likely a fifth person will face charges. Labour peer Baroness Uddin may find herself in front of a judge accused of wrongfully claiming £189,000 for her second home. At least this has the sexiness of a six digit number.

The public are getting tired of this story now and with many being forced to pay back money announcements of not seeking re-election will almost certainly come thick and fast.

Almost as certain is that none of the accused will face the maximum sentence which could be handed down to them and will most likely end up with a fine or suspended sentence.

All will of cause not stand at the next election and it has been announced will not collect their parachute payments for leaving the commons. One can only breathe a sigh of relief over that decision.

Is reform needed, yes, but surely it should be the public who decide who claimed wrongly at the ballot boxes come the next general election.

The whole point of democracy is the people have the power to change the system. We do not need expensive and radiucal overhaul of the expenses system simply a full disclosure once a year.

Every local newspaper would cover their own MP or MPs and every national would trawl through the numbers looking for outrageous claims or high profile members of the government or shadow cabinet.

Then the perpetrators would be judged by the people they represent who could decide if their claims were valid and voting them out if they were not.

Of cause it is not as simple as this but it is the best place to start to claw back some of the honour for the mother of all parliaments.

Chemical Ali and the Capital Punishment Question

2010-01-25T22:31:00.003Z

The Bible says an eye for an eye (Leviticus 24; 19) and surely when it come to a crime such as genocide this theological argument is never more poignant.

On January 25 Ali Hassan al-Majid, better known as Chemical Ali, was hung to for fill his four death sentences for genocide and crime against humanity.

To be more specific for his part in the gassing of 5,000 Kurds in the town of Halabja in 1988.

His execution was a quieter affair than that of his cousin Saddam Hussein in 2006 which led to the infamous video shot on a mobile phone.

However despite the undoubted evil of the Iraqi regime of the late 1980s is it right for the UK, a country which long ago abolished the capital punishment, to act so complicit in the killing of a foreign official?

Sunnis in Iraq see these executions not so much as a punishment but as retribution or even revenge for the previous establishment.

Of cause in the aftermath of World War Two we were essential in setting up the war crimes trials in both Nuremburg and Japan.

Many Nazis committed suicide rather than face the consequences and nobody had mobile phones to create martyred images on a camera phone.

It is hard to argue against people, Jews and Kurds especially, who gain some sense of retribution from seeing their persecutors meet a similar demise to their relatives in the same way it brings satisfaction to the families of murder victims in certain parts of America.

There were many however who, in a strange way, were pleased to see the compassion extended to the Lockerbie Bomber which he had not extended to his victims.

Allowing a terminally ill man to die with his family could be seen as the responsibility of any first world country lat alone what he has done to that country.

Again it is not difficult however to see why the decision has become so controversial.

It could be a strange blessing that successful suicide bombers never get to face the death penalty, although as jihadists is not death their ultimate goal.

With this in mind is the death penalty really a punishment at all for Muslim extremists?

Is not the whole reason for having capital punishment in the first place for it to act as a deterrent?

Statistics show murders in America are actually more common in states which have the death penalty suggesting the deterrent argument is ridiculous.

Again however I would ask you to argue against the satisfaction the victims family gets from seeing their demise.

With Muslim extremists it goes full circle yet again to a point where death is their ultimate goal.

Executing the failed bombers of 7/7, Glasgow or Detroit on Christmas Day surely is doing their job for them.

In this case why hang Saddam and Chemical Ali. Does this solve anything and as Muslims doing what they saw as gods work does this not hasten an end which they see as favourable.

Radovan Karadzic and General Ratko Mladic may both yet see the full force of the law extended to The Hague, but again this will not bring back the countless numbers killed in Sarajevo and Srebrenica.

Is not a lifetime behind bars a more apt punishment after the decadent lifestyle they enjoyed whilst others starved and were slaughtered?

Capital punishment is a thorny issue and we should all be thankful this latest execution did not end in the debacle seen in 2006.

Maybe however the West should look at its own morals before passing such judgements on the Muslim world.

The Balance Between Security And Protest

2009-12-23T17:57:00.004Z

Security around world leaders has always been a major issue and in the age of global terrorism it is even more important.

America claims the Secret Service who protect the President are the best trained armed guards in the world.

Hardly surprising when you consider there have been assassination attempts, of varying degrees of success and common sense, on every president since Richard Nixon.

So it must have come as a shock to a major European nation when its Prime Minister was hospitalised after being struck by a model of a cathedral.

Silvio Berlusconi is far from popular in Italy and has been the butt of more than the occasional joke abroad.

But when you resort to propelling tourist souvenirs do you not relinquish the high ground?

At both the G20 in London and in Copenhagen there were reports of vandalism by young people dressed in black wearing gas masks.

Anyone who was in London in April this year will tell you of the stark contrast between those there trying to make a genuine point and those clearly there to make trouble.

Of cause these are not the only events this year which have got us thinking about what means we use to attain our ends.

When two British soldiers were killed outside Massareene barracks in Northern Ireland in March it did more to cement anti-nationalist sentiment than the Good Friday Agreement.

The people of Ireland, both Protestant and Catholic, united for the first time in nearly a century determined not to go back to the days of road blocks, peace walls and car bombs.

But what about world leaders?

Recently at a state dinner in honour of Indian Prime Minister Manmohan Singh at the White House two people gatecrashed, and despite not even being invited met President Obama.

When Obama was running for President there were fears he would become a target for assassination attempts from white supremacists.

In fact a plot to kill him at the Democratic National Convention in Denver was foiled before he even accepted the nomination.

This in turn has let him open to political satirists.
One comedian pointed out one of the reasons people were so behind a black president is because you knew someone would try and kill him.

Then of cause there is the now legendary joke of the problems the Secret Service were having protecting Obama because every time they shouted ‘get down’ he started dancing.

Of cause the gatecrashers, like the man who dressed up as bin Laden for Prince William’s 21st birthday, meant no harm, and it seems in most cases the attacker was mentally unstable.

The man who threw the porcelain model at Berlusconi had apparently suffered from a mental unbalance, and Chester Plummer attempted to kill President Ford by walking across the White House lawn and hitting him with a three foot length of metal piping is clearly lacking some creative cunning.

And now allegedly mentally unbalanced women are jumping the barriers at midnight mass to attack the Holy Father. Admittedly the Pope wields less power than in the days of Machiavelli but several of the substantial security presence looked stunned and casually made their way back to attend to this global religious figurehead.

It is true the public need to be given their chance to voice personal displeasures with our leaders. But surely in this era of global threats and Patriot Actesque laws this should not be happening, and why do we still so often resort to violence.

Maybe this is the time which will produce the next Dr King or Ghandi?

What Can We Expect From Copenhagen?

2009-12-08T20:37:00.003Z

It is finally here. The most eagerly anticipated week of the year since the G20 in London is finally upon us. Also this week the Copenhagen Climate Conference got underway.

Regardless if you are a tree hugging liberal or cynical conservative the results of this week could have far reaching implications across the world.

But is a deal likely or even desirable?

Obviously if you are a firm believer in global warming you will see a deal as essential in much the same way a sceptic will tell you this week is a waste of time and money.

However to reach a deal a lot of divisions need to be bridged and Berlinesque walls demolished.

Unfortunately for those expecting a deal each country has entirely different expectations.

The third world needs a push in the right direction to avoid basing their entire economic future on oil.

Developing economies such as India and Brazil need to be able to expand further without compromising the future of the planet.

Meanwhile the developed world, most notably America, seems unwilling to give up the lifestyle they have carved out for themselves in the last century, although bizarrely it is they who seem to be pushing most for the global deal.

Some might say it is a bit hypocritical for nations of car drivers to tell nations of bicycle riders they need to reduce their carbon footprint.

Unfortunately some see the developing economies as the most troubling environmentally.

India, Brazil and China are producing higher carbon emissions the more their economies grow for obvious reasons and seem unwilling to relinquish this for even more obvious reasons.

However for the poorer countries to avoid falling into this trap they need foreign investment, which is not forthcoming without them making commitments first.

But should the developing world be the ones to make the first vital move?

America produces far more than its fair share of carbon and is the spiritual home of the most inefficient gas-guzzling vehicles known to mankind.

It was George W Bush who refused to sign up to Kyoto and avoid setting any kind of emissions standards. Can anyone imagine what this world would be like now if Al Gore had been declared the winner in Florida?

It is clear every country is going to have to make sacrifices if a deal is to be reached.

The developing world, most notably the rising economies will have to make assurances they will learn from the mistakes the developed world has made and look for a low carbon way to grow.

The developed world meanwhile must look for ways to make substantial changes to show the rest of the world it can be done.

Of cause none of this is likely to happen without the financial backing of the developed world, none of whom have any money to give out at the moment.

Then we come to the most obvious problem that not all people believe in it.

According to recent poll in the UK nearly 50% of people we dubious about the mankind’s effect on global warming.

The hacked e-mails from the University of East Anglia have caused a huge rift in the environmental groups and have galvanised the sceptics.

On top of this some attending the conference flat out oppose a deal being made.

BNP leader Nick Griffin, who is representing the EU at Copenhagen, has called climate change a myth and has called green taxes a money grab.

Despite whatever personal feeling you might have towards his politics he is certainly not the man people want to see representing the EU at a celebrity golf match let alone something important.

However at least he is turning up. President Barack Obama will not attend until the last days of the summit, with many saying an American commitment is the only thing that matters.

To compound all of this there is the problem of the oil producing countries.

Most oil rich countries have their entire wealth tied up in petroleum

Most oil rich countries have huge stakes in the national oil producer.

These countries who would be seen as ‘rogue nations’ if it was not for oil can now see a bleaker future on the horizon.

If it was possible to see beyond the scientific doubts of climate change the barriers still look imposing.

The developing world will not commit until America has set emissions standards and is helping them financially to secure a greener future, and the developed world will not commit or fund until they have the assurances of the developing countries.

And then you still come round to this problem of scepticism over Climate Change itself.

Is a deal desirable? On the face of it yes, although as long as there are sceptics people will find this debatable.

Can a deal be reached? On the face of it no.

The Truth about Spending Cuts

2009-11-30T19:43:00.005Z

Public spending cuts – a phrase we have heard all too much in recent months. But despite the name recognition nobody really seems to understand what it means, and this is not just restricted to the voters. Even politicians seem to struggle to pin down what form they will take.

The deficit currently stands at over £820bn and anyone who has ever struggled to pay of a mortgage, loan or bank overdraft will tell you it is impossible to continue running with debts of such magnitude.

However, as anyone who has lost their job in the last twelve months will tell you, we cannot afford to risk the economic recovery.

So what is the best way to reduce the deficit without risking the dreaded double-dip recession?

As you are doubt aware the major difference between the parties is not if but when to switch of the life-support. Labour believes the recovery should come first, securing our economic recovery before focusing on the repercussions of massive national debt. The conservatives on the other hand want to rip-off the bandage to show foreign investors how serious Britain is about our economic future.

Despite objections from the other side of the chamber keeping public spending up has helped this country get through the downturn, a tactic used by Franklin Roosevelt after the great depression. However as David Cameron regularly points out Gordon Brown has appeared to be asleep at the switch when it comes to reducing the debt.

Mr Brown has called for a 50% reduction during the next parliament, while Mr Cameron has called for a much larger reduction, although he has refused to be specific.

The Tory leaders view is much more in line with Bank of England chairman Mervyn King, who has regularly called for spending cuts to completely remove the deficit in four years.

Unfortunately for Messer’s Cameron and King anyone with vague socialist tendencies will point out the conservatives objected to the bank bail-outs, 50p tax rate and sustained levels of public spending, all of which played a vital part in Britain’s tentative recovery.

However what political and fiscal conservatives will tell you is an economy needs investors and entrepreneurs to grow, and with such large national debt the UK is far from the most attractive investment market at this time. Government does not create jobs, business does.

Both have so far called for public sector pay-freezes which although making a start on deficit reduction is comparable to sending soldiers to Afghanistan with an air rifle.
Both have pledged not to cut NHS funding in the aftermath of the American health-care debate, while cutting military funding or homeland security would be politically suicidal.

So with nobody willing to commit themselves what are the alternatives?

Tax rises – The human mind is not capable of understanding how incredibly unpopular this notion would be, especially in the run-up to Christmas and stories of bank bonuses (tax-free by the way) already on the return.

Right wingers normally campaign on the opposite in fact, but even Mr Cameron has been forced to admit the 50p rate on incomes over £150,000 cannot be removed instantly by a new conservative government.

A popular notion is to reduce inefficiency rather than actually cutting spending.

London Mayor Boris Johnson has already claimed he can save Transport for London £5bn without effecting services through streamlining the existing framework, although doubts over these claims have subsequently arrived.

The major problem is none of the major parties seems prepared to give any details. Each tied up in a high-stakes game of poker, keeping their card close to their chests.

It is hard to blame them. The stakes are not just high but massive.

Either Gordon Brown or David Cameron will travel to Buckingham Palace next year and be asked to form a government whose almost sole task is to restore economic growth and reduce the deficit while fighting what is seen by many as an unwinnable and expensive war in Afghanistan.

Unfortunately for them it appears details are what people want now. Public sector pay freezes as we know barely make a dent in the deficit and businesses want to know what the government is going to do next before risking their futures investing in Britain.

The average person wants to know if a Tory government is elected will we go back to the days of underfunded public transport, hospitals and schools, while at the same time wanting to know if we re-elect Labour will the deficit continue to grow at a rate which predicts a £1.1tn deficit by 2011.

All this while economic recovery is threatened by a collapse in stock prices in Dubai.

Come the New Year all parties will be climbing over each other to announce what will be cut when and where. However fears remain that politicising this issue may be doing more harm than good with a new government looking for the short-term fix rather than the examining the long-term consequences.