Self-defence: a case of proportionality

It is contentious to argue that when an intruder enters private property, they forgoe their rights and are at the wrath of the owners - this is essentially what the Tories propose. The Conservative Party want to stretch existing legislation to give householders more power in the event of a burglary. This is wholly unreasonable and unecessary.

The status quo is sufficient. It recognises that householders have a right to self-defence and are likely to act violently in the heat of the moment. It recognises that householders have an inalienable right to protect their property, family and themselves. The case of the Hussein brothers, who were shown "mercy" by the jury, attests this.

It is pertinent to stress the notion of proportionality. When tackling a criminal, it is permissible to use physically hurt him to defuse the situation. However, it is then unjustified if the householder then proceeds to kick him in the head twenty times. The law currently recognises this difference. Yet the Tories still want to effectively grant householders a 'licence to kill burglars.' This encourages vigilantist behaviour. People must not take the law into their own hands - that is the role of the courts.

Furthermore, giving householders the right to use disproportionate force against a burglar is counterproductive. More burglars will feel the need to carry extreme weaponry. In the USA, as citizens have the right to keep handguns in their house, criminals, who otherwise may not, must do the same. The same principle applies to this case.

Householders must have the right to proportionate self-defence, but the law already caters to this. However, they do not have the right to take the law into their own hands.

A US-style levy on banks?

President Obama has outlined plans for a $117bn bank levy - in order to recover money that was spent by the taxpayer on the bailouts. Britain must not follow suit.

Although such a move would prove to be a substantial vote-winner, it does not make any economic sense. The situation in Britain is different to the USA. When Britain bailed out banks, the process partly involved buying shares of the company.

However, a Labour backbencher, MP John Mann called for tougher restrictions. He claimed that bankers have "nowhere else to [threaten] to go" if we levy taxes on banks because America is no longer an option. This statement is utterly fallacious. Banks could easily move to the far east, where costs are substantially cheaper. We must be careful not to overreact to public outrage by being too harsh on banks. It will simply prove counter-productive for us in the long-term. Nevertheless, a tax could be more justified if several major economies agreed as well.

If punitive taxes were levied on banks because the government succumbed to public pressure, it could be fatal. Instead of punishing banks, the public may be punished. The taxes could translate into higher prices for consumers.

There is a need to reform banks in Britain. However, our desire to eradicate the reckless behaviour of bankers must not result in any rash decisions. We must err on the side of caution, if London is to remain competitive in the future.

Angola: premature trust?

The African Cup of Nations is meant to be a celebration of African football; the continent united in one competition. However, the decision to host the African Cup of Nations in Angola was not the wisest idea.

Angola emerged from civil war in 2002. The Foreign and Commonwealth Office advises not to travel to the region of Cabinda, in the north-west of the region. Perhaps the country wanted to host the tournament to prove that they had become a safe, stable nation. It is unfortunate that this terrorist group have rendered Angola's efforts vain. For Angola, one isolated incident has meant that this whole tournament has been counter-productive for the country. Its prestige has been vitiated by terrorists.

What promised to be the zenith of Angola's decade has turned into the nadir. This does not bode well for the continent, especially when they play host to the world's biggest festival in June.

Britain vs Greece

Both countries have racked up similarly farcical debt levels, around 13 per cent of the GDP - yet Greece are in much more trouble.

The problem started when Greece joined the ERM at a rate that suited Germany. This is attested by the rising prices in Greece. They are bound by eurozone regulations to keep below 3 per cent. Good job Britain left the ERM in 1992! Otherwise, our debt levels would be even more pressing than it already is.

So what's the difference between Greece and Britain? Although our debts may be equally dire proportionally, the markets have a markedly lower confidence with Greece. They are more incredulous that Greece will be able to 8.7 per cent this year, as forecasted by their finance minister. Like Britain, for years the government have underestimated the structural budget deficit. The difference between tax receipts and government spending have worringly diverged this decade. To put it simply, they have overspent.

It must be noted that Greece is plagued by a black economy, whereas Britain is not. Tax evasion in Greece is prominent, which is a significant drain on the public purse on an already poor country.

Age of Austerity

The stock markets may have rallied over the last year but the effects are longer-lasting. Britain is the last of the G7 countries to be in recession in the third quarter of 2009. Although it may have been right to pursue Keynesian policies of big government and explosive public spending, we must now start to face the prospect of an age of austerity.

The unprecedented scale of the budget deficit can only be stemmed by drastic action. The government must curb public spending on every level and raise taxes. However, raising taxes is perhaps not the best idea - household debts are equally high. If taxes are raised, then consumer demand would contract sharply, threatening a double-dip recession. Although the probability may be small, the consequences are far too much.

There are a plethora of ways to cut our fiscal policy but only one can be certain: our debt needs to be better managed. Throughout the decade, public finances have been grossly mismanaged. We must stop this before we hit a catastrophe. If our debt rises much further, currently at 13% of our GDP, our credit rating could be slashed. Britain will have to pay for this through sky high interest payments.

Whatever happens, we are entering an age of austerity...

The Gulf of Mistrust.

It is undoubtedly the toughest and most pivotal foreign policy challenge of them all: dealing with the fierce hostility of Iran. That is the biggest foreign policy challenge for us in 2010.

The Iranian government try to suppress its dissidents into submission, destabilise its neighbours and is contemptuous towards UN nuclear regulations. To deal with these types of unpalatable regimes is like playing with fire. But if you keep working at it, it will subside in time. It is a similar story with Iran - if we keep an open dialogue and are patient, they will become less of a rogue state.

Lessons from Japan

Japan's sad plight over the last two decades have taught us some very pertinent lessons. Britain is the most indebted country in the Western world and it is important that this is fixed in order not to undermine confidence in the markets.

The Conservatives speak of tax increases in the near future. However, we must not be too hasty to tighten our belts. Like Japan found out, it is unwise to tighten fiscal policy before we are completely certain that consumer demand is strong enough to carry itself. Otherwise, we risk a double-dip recession.

The dearth of credit means it is important that we keep public spending up. If the government can stimulate demand in the private sector, then we will see industry grow again and unemployment will fall. It is only then, that we must start looking for 'savings'.

Affordable housing? Surely not.

It is a truth universally known that British house prices are utterly unaffordable, especially for the first-time buyer. Yet research indicates that property has now become affordable in 39% of local authority districts.

From the start of the decade, house prices have steadily risen, peaking in 2007. Between 2007 and 2008 house prices decreased. This decrease and lower interest rates meant that first-time buyers could, in theory, get on to the property ladder. However, this proved very much futile because credit had dried up when confidence plummeted and banks were lending very cautiously.

Perhaps, the housing market, not our national debt is the worst legacy this recession will leave.

The divergence of fate between Britain and the developing nations.

Many developing economies are heavily reliant on the manufacturing industry and several commodities. Thus, when there was a dearth of global demand in 2009, they were heavily hit. Not only did demand sharply drop but the prices also followed a similar fate. Prices have been volatile, adding to the huge amount of uncertainty.

There has also been a decline in remittances sent to developing nations. The World Bank predicts that remittances have fallen by up to 10% in 2009.

However, many of these manufacturing, export based economies have recovered quicker than the likes of Britain. For example, Germany, although not a developing nation, recorded quarters of growth far before Britain did.

This can be attributed to two reasons. First, it must be noted that the average Briton is in far more debt than anywhere else. Thus, when hit by a recession, unlike Germany, we were unable to simply spend our way out of a storm. This is precisely why it is of utmost importance that in times of boom we save up, to act as a cushion for times of slump.

Secondly, this crises was a financial one. Britain is heavily reliant on the financial sector - in fact, 7% of our GDP growth comes from our financial sector. Thus, it comes as no surprise that we were heavily hit.