Big Four Complacent...Along With House Of Lords

A House of Lords report has labelled the "Big Four" accountancy groups as complacent in their failure to identify the corporate failings which contributed to the banking crisis. This charge is not new and was explained at the time by the firms in question as due to the retrospective nature of an audit process that is not designed to predict the future. The same firms are, however, also heavily involved in economic and financial forecasting for clients through their management consultancy divisions. The fact is that they had - as strategy firm Mckinsey, with no accountancy practice, have acknowledged - bought into the "financial deepening" of an ever more complex banking system so completely that "no more boom and bust", to quote former Chancellor of the Exchequer Gordon Brown, was the economic doctrine of the day.

The fact that this doctrine went widely unquestioned by "corporate insiders" should come as no surprise, as illustrated in the fate of a former HBOS financial director who was forced out of post when he started to raise difficult questions well before the banking crisis began. Deep thinking, in my experience, is rarely regarded as a core competency for progression up the corporate ladder. Although there are exceptions to the rule, the culture of most large, and many smaller, organisations - private, public and even non-governmental - tends to favour compliant people who swim with the tide of current thinking. For not to adopt this approach runs the clear risk of losing one's job, promotion or, in the case of audit firms and consultancies, like-thinking clients such as key financial service and government accounts.

Given that the House of Lords is packed with these corporate insiders - and in the interests of editorial balance after my previous post on Nimbyism - I'm inclined to come to the defence of the large audit firms which it has chosen to criticise. I did many years ago also enjoy the employment of one myself, until it was pointed our to me that I was not suitable material for progression up the corporate ladder: a judgement with which I had to agree. Business services, like banking and the legal profession is, after all, a sector for which Britain is internationally renowned and an important contributor to UK plc. The sector attracts many intellectually talented, emotionally intelligent and socially well-adjusted people of the kind who make stimulating and congenial colleagues, whose achievements are regularly recognised in the honours system, and sometimes through elevation to "the other place".

In Defence Of NIMBYISM At Home And Abroad

I have noticed that the Coalition Government's C3OH2 (Cameron, Clegg, Cable, Osborne, Hammond and Huhne) have started to rail against so-called NIMBYS (Not-In-My-Back-Yarders) as if these constituted some new threat to national security, so today I want to defend Nimbys at home and abroad today.

Let me start in present day Africa, Kenya to be precise, where, according to BBC Radio 4's The World Tonight programme yesterday, the sustainable livelihoods of tribes people, together with wildlife, are threatened by foreign companies "land grabbing" for the purposes of growing biofuel to help meet the European Union's targets for the use of renewal energy. Some Kenyans have taken objection to this because of the threat that large scale biofuel crops pose both to biodiversity conservation as well as the use of land for growing food. As European targets for renewal energy consumption are clearly a good thing, these Kenyans must be Nimbys standing in the way of progress in the form of green energy. Or might their objections stand up to scrutiny ? There are undoubtedly other ways in which Europe can meet its renewable energy requirements, and such an availability of alternative options often lies at the heart of objections to development which are put down to so-called Nimbyism.

Moving back to Britain - from Australia as it happened - in the mid-1980s, I found myself involved in a planning inquiry into proposals by the Department of Transport to build a new road link across the Thames from the Docklands area to South East London: the never-built East London River Crossing. This scheme would have demolished hundreds of residential and commercial properties, and consumed a large amount of open land south of the river including the famous Oxleas Wood, but the future development of London Docklands depended upon it, or so supporters said. Opponents were cast as Nimbys and, indeed, Luddites, for suggesting that the transport needs of what was later to become known as London Thames Gateway would be better met by strategic rail investment, and - pre-crossrail - an extension of the tube, yet they were proved correct.

The truth is that so-called Nimbys are often right to oppose development, as history will later demonstrate. They frequently have the long term interests of their areas and communities at heart in ways which politicians, technocrats and administrators rarely do. Moreover, some of the most effective Nimby's have a background in precisely those professions most aligned with the apparent march of progress, but "having seen the light" choose to use their talents for the greater good of preventing unsustainable development at home and abroad.

Ford Focus Budget Delivers Some Cold Comfort

When the significance of "Motorway Man" was identified by a Conservative MP before the last General Election, I took this to mean that, Coalition or not, the next government was unlikely to be the "greenest ever". So last week's so-called "Ford Focus Budget", and the accompanying "Plan for Growth", despite use of the "plan" word, came as no real surprise.

Nevertheless, this Budget was not all bad. The re-creation of "Enterprise Zones" is to be broadly welcomed as a means of promoting the unrealised economic opportunities of industrial areas with a plentiful supply of brownfield developments sites.

The wider question, however, is whether the UK Coalition Government really understands the international economic and environmental context and the future shocks this may deliver over, say, a twenty year period. My sense is that there are some significant gaps in government intelligence, but I take cold comfort from an unlikely source, the latest report from the McKinsey Global Institute entitled "Urban World: Mapping the economic power of cities", for reasons I shall shortly explain on my other blog @ http://janetmackinnon.wordpress.com/

Picture: my transport during the cold spell which caused so much chaos earlier in the year.

Libya - A Case for Muscular Multilateralism

The decision by the United Nations Security Council to support a no-fly zone over Libya, and thereby lend the assistance of the international community to those Libyans in the east of the country fighting against the forces of Colonel Gadhafi*, has revealed some unlikely hawks and doves. As someone who has styled himself as much an African** as Arab leader in recent years, Gadhafi has bought the support of African mercenaries in an attempt to quash opposition to his regime. Meanwhile, Arab countries, along with France and Britain, have successfully sought a UN resolution to intervene in the conflict. Although the shadows of our involvement in Afghanistan, and, particularly in Iraq, hang over this latest intervention, the situation in fact bears more resemblance to that of the former Yugoslavia during the 1990s. In short, there is a moral imperative to intervene, as reflected in discussions at today's summit in Paris, notwithstanding the serious consequences that this may bring.

* Associated Press spelling
** The African Union's response to the Libyan crisis must be reported in the British media.

A New Muscular Multi-Culturalism Is Needed Now

Multi-culturalism, like slow growth, is out of favour in Britain. Although Germany seems to have thrived on slow growth, its Chancellor, and new iron lady, Angela Merkel, has also been critical of multi-culturalism. Indeed, it seems to have been Merkel's recent comments that have prompted David Cameron's invocation of a new muscular liberalism, whereby Britain's core values are to be set out to its citizens and other residents. Yet the challenge to such values hardly comes from the post-war multi-cultural legacy. Rather it is the apparent monoculturalism of certain representations of Islam that have challenged the pluralism and tolerance which the British have generally espoused.

Interviewed earlier this week on BBC Radio 4's "Thinking Aloud" programme, Professor Stuart Hall of the Open University, and formerly head of cultural studies at the University of Birmingham, responded to the current debate about multi-culturalism with a muscular intellect for such matters which those on the right, and, arguably, even on the centre, of British politics seem unable to muster. With a Caribbean and colonial heritage, Hall described the changes which have occurred in Britain since his arrival in 1951; also noting that his education in the West Indies enabled him to recognise our native trees.

The fact that many indigenous Britain's, let alone migrants, struggle with such a task today is a reflection more of the decline in this country's general standards of education in the intervening period than the fault of multi-culturalism. Although there is a strong tendency amongst politicians, and other commentators, particularly on the right, to confuse these two issues. In fact, multi-culturalism tends to be invoked as the "bete noire" of all sorts of problems which have beset British society since the 1950s, including rising levels of family breakdown and crime, nothwithstanding that, judged proportionately, these were just as great in the past.

However, it is the overall growth in the population of this country in the intervening period, and more especially increasing population growth elsewhere in the world, which does pose a real and major challenge. A new muscular multi-cultural response to this situation is required, which recognises the strengths of different national heritages and social groups, because these must be harnessed to tackle present and future problems, particularly those arising from environmental change and economic uncertainty. In this context, muscular liberalism, I would suggest, resonates too much with the laissez-faire international outlook which has contributed most to the crises in which global capitalism now finds itself.

Japanese Earthquake - Jesus Out To Sea ?

The rescue of a Japanese man swept out to sea on the roof of his house recalls the title short story of a collection by the US writer James Lee Burke, "Jesus Out To Sea", in which a similar fate befalls some citizens of New Orleans following Hurricane Katrina in 2005.

In a disaster situation greater in magnitude than even those tragic events which have befallen the Gulf of Mexico in recent years, much is currently being made of Japan's orderly and courageous response to the largest earthquake in its history and the accompanying tsunami.

The country's Shinto religion bears some similarity to James Lovelock's Gaia Theory, with the forces of nature regarded as deities capable of wreaking utmost havoc on human society. It is curious, therefore, that both these should lend support to the development of nuclear power.

For few technologies would seem less compatible with major disruption in the earth's crust than nuclear, yet it is precisely country's prone to these, such Japan and Iran, which have raced to develop their capacity, when renewable options like solar and sea power are readily available.

Indeed, Japan would surely have been far better to have deployed the country's undoubted technological brilliance in harnessing wind and wave power. Instead the sea is now being used to appease nuclear reactors which have "gone critical"*

Although it may seem uncompassionate, and even unchristian, to raise these issues at the present time, events in Japan must inform the current escalation in nuclear power, which, sadly, many so-called environmentalists have chosen to endorse.

Nuclear power is not an appropriate technology, although along with coal, oil and gas it has to be regarded as a transitional one: and the sooner the world makes a transition out of these unsustainable technologies the better.

Compassion for the Japanese from the world's peoples is certainly called for at the present time, but so is compassion for the environment. This is not compatible with nuclear proliferation, particularly in a climate change scenario with increased tectonic activity.

*Going Critical is the title of a book on nuclear power by Walt Patterson