Perhaps it is slightly pertrubing that tonight's election debate (just 15 minutes to go!) excites me just as much as the World Cup in June. Eeek!
Tonight could prove to be a game changer yet it could also be a damp squib. As its the very first election debate in British politics, no one quite knows how it will turn out. With trust in politics at a low ebb, it is essential that this debate is an engaged and responsive one. Although it will be fantastic for tomorrow morning's soundbites, I hope the debate does not prevail as one full of recited lines and bunch of pretty phrases. I hope for substance over style.
More than anything, I hope the rules are broken! The crowd are forbidden from cheering and booing - ridiculous!
Thursday, 15 April 2010
Sunday, 7 February 2010
Negotiating with the non-negotiable
With the military offensive in Afghanistan looking bleak, politicians are considering another route - negotiation with the Taliban.
The thinking is that in exchange for a better future, many of the Taliban will put down their arms. It is said that most fighter are not ideologically driven, but instead, are forced into a life of fighting because it is their only option. If they are offered a better path - not bags of money - but the prospect of an education and jobs they will stop fighting.
Perhaps this solution is unsustainable. Even if we can "buy out" some of the smaller fighters, until we can eradicate the leaders we have very little chance.
This new idea taps into the debate about negotiating with terrorists. In principle, it is wrong to negotiate with people who try to achieve their aims through violence. However, there are those who claim these principles pale into insignifcance when we consider the benefits. If negotiation can ultimately lead to lives being saved, this must be the priority. The British government, under John Major, held secret talks with the IRA which led to the first breakthrough to a ceasefire. The ends justifies the means.
However, the idea of negotiation with the Taliban is nothing less than idealistic. The very nature of terrorists is that they want all or nothing. They are not prepared to make concessions.
Negotiation with the Taliban is unworkable.
The thinking is that in exchange for a better future, many of the Taliban will put down their arms. It is said that most fighter are not ideologically driven, but instead, are forced into a life of fighting because it is their only option. If they are offered a better path - not bags of money - but the prospect of an education and jobs they will stop fighting.
Perhaps this solution is unsustainable. Even if we can "buy out" some of the smaller fighters, until we can eradicate the leaders we have very little chance.
This new idea taps into the debate about negotiating with terrorists. In principle, it is wrong to negotiate with people who try to achieve their aims through violence. However, there are those who claim these principles pale into insignifcance when we consider the benefits. If negotiation can ultimately lead to lives being saved, this must be the priority. The British government, under John Major, held secret talks with the IRA which led to the first breakthrough to a ceasefire. The ends justifies the means.
However, the idea of negotiation with the Taliban is nothing less than idealistic. The very nature of terrorists is that they want all or nothing. They are not prepared to make concessions.
Negotiation with the Taliban is unworkable.
Tuesday, 2 February 2010
"We are all Keynesians now"
It is what we have all been waiting for: slamming the door on the recession.
However, we must not be too hasty - the prospect of a strong recovery lies in the balance. Figures that the economy grew by 0.1% in the last quarter of 2009 was substantially weaker than what most economists predicted. More worrying is that the figure could yet be revised downwards. The latest reading is only the first of three. The next two will come in February and March. It is entirely plausible that we could record minus growth again, just like in the recession of 1990-2.
There are two factors that will jeopardise the recovery. Firstly, with the election battle in full swing, Labour and Conservatives are keen to show that they can handle the budget deficit. In many areas they will be looking for spending cuts. This is a risky business. If any good can come out of Japan's demise in the 1990s, it is that there are pertinent lessons to be learnt. Japan tightened their fiscal policy before private demand could sustain itself. We must not take the same path and risk a double-dip recession. The second threat to our recovery is inflation. There has been a sharp rise in inflation to 2.9% (CPI index). Although this can be largely attributed to the VAT rise back to 17.5%, consumers will nevertheless cut spending. The Bank of England sees the hike in inflation as temporary, but the public may not.
It is in this dire context that the government must sustain the recovery. The goverment must continue to sustain demand through big spending to encourgae businesses to invest. It is the proper role of government to fill the shorfall in private demand - "we are all Keynesians now." However, this will come at a cost. Our budget deficit is utterly unsustainable. If the government continue to spend more than it recieves from tax receipts for much longer, confidence will plummet. Credit agencies have already warned that our AAA status is being threatened. A downgrade will have catastrophic results. Interest rates will soar as creditors judge loans to be very risky. The rate at which the goverment must press the brakes on our aggressive fiscal policy is very much a judgement call. The rate of growth, unemployment levels and credit levels must all be considered.
Britain were worryingly sluggish out of recession. These new figures of timid growth is not a poll asset for Labour. But it can be used to scare the public away from Conservative plans for unprecendented cuts.
However, we must not be too hasty - the prospect of a strong recovery lies in the balance. Figures that the economy grew by 0.1% in the last quarter of 2009 was substantially weaker than what most economists predicted. More worrying is that the figure could yet be revised downwards. The latest reading is only the first of three. The next two will come in February and March. It is entirely plausible that we could record minus growth again, just like in the recession of 1990-2.
There are two factors that will jeopardise the recovery. Firstly, with the election battle in full swing, Labour and Conservatives are keen to show that they can handle the budget deficit. In many areas they will be looking for spending cuts. This is a risky business. If any good can come out of Japan's demise in the 1990s, it is that there are pertinent lessons to be learnt. Japan tightened their fiscal policy before private demand could sustain itself. We must not take the same path and risk a double-dip recession. The second threat to our recovery is inflation. There has been a sharp rise in inflation to 2.9% (CPI index). Although this can be largely attributed to the VAT rise back to 17.5%, consumers will nevertheless cut spending. The Bank of England sees the hike in inflation as temporary, but the public may not.
It is in this dire context that the government must sustain the recovery. The goverment must continue to sustain demand through big spending to encourgae businesses to invest. It is the proper role of government to fill the shorfall in private demand - "we are all Keynesians now." However, this will come at a cost. Our budget deficit is utterly unsustainable. If the government continue to spend more than it recieves from tax receipts for much longer, confidence will plummet. Credit agencies have already warned that our AAA status is being threatened. A downgrade will have catastrophic results. Interest rates will soar as creditors judge loans to be very risky. The rate at which the goverment must press the brakes on our aggressive fiscal policy is very much a judgement call. The rate of growth, unemployment levels and credit levels must all be considered.
Britain were worryingly sluggish out of recession. These new figures of timid growth is not a poll asset for Labour. But it can be used to scare the public away from Conservative plans for unprecendented cuts.
Tuesday, 26 January 2010
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.
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.
Saturday, 16 January 2010
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.
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.
Tuesday, 12 January 2010
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.
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.
Friday, 8 January 2010
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.
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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)