COSSACK HORSEMAN AND KIEV PRO-EU PROTEST

CO-OP DEBACLE: THE FIFTH LABOUR OF MILIBAND

In the good old days, financial scandals mostly happened to Labour whereas the Conservatives were prone to sexual improprieties. Enter the larger than life figure of former Reverend Paul Flowers, doyen of ethical banking, amongst other things, and a man able to bestride this traditional political divide like a colossus, whilst bringing the Methodist Church in to disrepute at the same time. Please see: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paul_Flowers_%28banker%29 Naturally, British media of all political persuasions have enjoyed a field day and foreign journalists have flocked to our shores to share this spectacle of ethical deflowerment around the globe. Britain is widely regarded abroad as a nation of hypocrites, although most of our politicians and wider governing elite, including the prime minister, seem blissfully unaware of this for much of the time, and for many foreigners the Flowers debacle story will have shown our country in what they believe to be its true colours.

However, whilst the role of the former Reverend Flowers, assisted it has to be said by many others from ruling elite, in the downfall of the Co-operative Bank may be a national embarrassment - whilst some have liked his antics off-stage to the US crime drama "Breaking Bad" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Breaking_Bad  - the real lessons of this particular episode in British public life must be learnt most of all by Labour Party Leader Ed Miliband. Mr Miliband inherited what can only be described as "The Labours of Hercules" when he took over leadership of the party in 2010 and the task of cleaning-up after Paul Flowers, as well as other notables like Ed Balls, may be likened to "the Fifth Labour" or the cleansing of the Augean stables - see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Augeas  This is a chance for the Leader of the Opposition to demonstrate that he can rid himself of the legacy of financial incompetence inherited from the Blair-Brown Labour governments by appointing a new Treasury team. Failure to seize the opportunity could well spell an end to Mr Miliband's ambitions to be prime minister.

HORSE MEAT: DAVID STARKEY ON PRINCESS ANNE

The Duchess of York and Sir David Starkey in The Tatler magazine

Let me preface this post by saying that I love horses and good satire in that order. I also rather like Sir David Starkey, have some respect for Princess Anne and no particular objection to the Duchess of York (of whom nor more shall be written here). Nevertheless, it's fair to say that all three royals - Starkey, after all, is a historian of the monarchy - bring some controversy to the table.

So it was last week when Princess Anne used her speech at a World Horse Welfare event to suggest that eating horses may be good for their health. Now horse welfare is a complex subject which I do not propose to discuss in detail here, save to say that management of the equine population through appropriate breeding (including its prevention) practices is fundamental to this. End of life management is also a key issue and Princess Anne has done no harm in drawing attention to this. It should also be said that World Horse Welfare and similar charities do some excellent work in dealing with a range of problems facing equine populations in the UK, as well as in less developed countries where many animals labour and die in the most difficult of circumstances.

It was in to this uncomfortable discourse that Sir David Starkey too lept last week, when he suggested on the BBC Radio 4 panel show "Any Questions?" that Princess Anne looked like a horse - a comment that I'm sure the good lady would take as a compliment - and, with more than a touch of irony, that her advocacy of horse meat consumption revealed an unexpected "satirist".

Of course, it was Sir David and not Her Royal Highness who had spotted a satirical opportunity and chose to exploit this to the discomfiture of his more politically correct panel contestants and their audience. Likening Princess Ann's comments to Jonathan Swift's famous satire "A Modest Proposal for Preventing the Children of Poor People From Being a Burthen to Their Parents or Country, and for Making Them Beneficial to the Publick"*, Starkey went on to debunk her suggestion. In doing so, he returned the issue of horse meat consumption to a wider welfare context, thereby displaying some deft satirical footwork, which was unfortunately lost on his companions from across the politically correct spectrum.

Instead, Sir David Starkey brought ire upon himself from those who missed his ironic analogy and interpreted his comments as sexist. Although the subsequent media indignation was not so great as that sparked by Princess Anne herself, it was nonetheless significant, with the Huffington Post and its followers on Twitter getting into a considerable huff over the matter.

What all this reveals is that rational debate around challenging issues is increasingly difficult in an age of so-called emotional intelligence, and that it is no longer just North Americans who lack a sense of irony. With contemporary sensibilities so easily offended on these and a whole range of other matters it is hardly surprising that public discourse in Britain is in such a parlous state.

*  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A_Modest_Proposal

WHO'S HOLDING UP THE CHILCOT REPORT?

In some respects the circumstances leading to and surrounding the ongoing Chilcot Inquiry into the Iraq War are the opposite of those associated with more recent investigations into security leaks and media hacking. For at the heart of the Chilcot deliberations is not an explosive release of intelligence through illegitimate channels but rather an absence of information, currently reflected in the withholding, for reasons which are far from clear, of the inquiry's long overdue final report.

In a letter to the Prime Minister of 4th November this year, the official Chilcot website - www.iraqinquiry.org.uk - leads us to believe that the cause of the report's delay is due to the "Maxwellisation process". According to Wikipedia this "is a procedure in British governance where individuals due to be criticised in an official report are sent details of the criticism in advance and permitted to respond prior to publication. The process takes its name from the newspaper owner Robert Maxwell. In 1969, Maxwell was criticised in a report by the Department of Trade and Industry as "unfit to hold the stewardship of a public company". Maxwell took the matter to court where the DTI were said by the judge to have "virtually committed the business murder" of Maxwell. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maxwellisation

However, for those who might infer from the above reference that it is the deceased newspaper mogul who is responsible for holding up publication of the Chilcot report, I can say quite categorically that this is not the case. Instead blame has been cast upon Cabinet Secretary Sir Jeremy Heywood - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jeremy_Heywood - who has apparently vetoed publication of documents supporting the main report.

Sir Jeremy's apparent action has led to a flurry of media coverage and a former Labour Foreign Secretary Lord Owen has requested that the Lord Chancellor Chris Grayling - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chris_Grayling - take charge of the matter. Meanwhile, the Independent newspaper claims in an exclusive today that it is the United States government who are now holding up publication of the long-awaited Chilcot report, although this has subsequently been denied by sources there.

NATION IN GRIP OF NEW WITCH HYSTERIA

No doubt I'm not alone in starting to feel sorry for Rebekah Brooks; even if  I don't regard the latest cover of Private Eye to be in bad taste. The idea that the police should try to prevent its sale by a street vendor near the Old Bailey, where Mrs Brooks in currently on trial for phone hacking and corruption amongst other things, seems ridiculous. Nevertheless, I do think the nation has become gripped by a sort of witch hysteria, and what better day than Halloween to discuss this subject.

Mrs Brooks has wielded much power in her day, and many may be surprised that her secret consort was only former Downing Street spin doctor Andy Coulson and not the Prince of Darkness himself. However, her main crime now, it seems to me, is to be a non-establishment figure who has been dropped by former powerful friends as fast as a red hot poker. The lady herself, I suspect, may regret that her talents weren't sort out by the security services where her actions would have been rewarded.

Indeed, had Mrs Brooks made a career of espionage, supervising acts of surveillance and other nefarious activities, she may well have landed a peerage. Instead, in what has been described as "the trial of the century" she stands accused of offences which may have been common practice in the media, and, dare I suggest, other walks of public life. Like earlier witch hunters, the latest ones "protesteth too much", in the hope, no doubt, of hiding their own dark secrets.

CHINESE NUCLEAR POWER?: NO THANKS!

 A recent BBC satirical panel show hosted by Rory Bremner asked the question: "Who owns Britain?" The answer was largely foreign companies and governments. One wonders then why there is so much fuss about European Union regulations. Personally, I would prefer the country was run from Brussels than Beijing. Moreover, if the name Angela Merkel was ever to appear on my ballot paper, I would certainly vote for her ahead of any serving British politician, even the Green MP Caroline Lucas.

For whilst the German Chancellor has managed to preside over her country's phasing out of nuclear power, following the 2011 Fukushima disaster in Japan, the British government has carried on regardless with the promotion of new reactors. We now learn that Chinese companies are to be allowed to hold a majority stake in these. Surely some mistake? When George Osborne and Boris Johnson descended on Beijing this week, many people thought their mission was to increase UK exports, following the example of Germany (who export more than they import from the Chinese). Instead, it seems that London is to become a Chinese off-shore zone and British energy policy - or that of England, Wales and Northern Ireland anyway - is to be run from Beijing.

What this demonstrates is that our Chancellor of the Exchequer and the Mayor of London are a pair of political opportunists par excellence. However, if anyone is looking to a change of UK government for national energy security and sustainability, there seems to be little prospect of this short of direct rule from Berlin. In the meantime, Britons may wish to ponder how they can prevent a couple of political Beau Gestes like Osborne and Johnson from ever becoming prime minister.

OLD SCHOOL BOYS ON BEIJING CHARM OFFENSIVE

Some light entertainment from the Blond Bombshell and Gorgeous George (looking slightly embarrassed) whilst this blog reflects on more serious matters for its next post...

SYRIAN CRISIS : WHO'S PULLING WHOSE STRINGS?

Few would deny that Vladimir Putin is an ambiguous figure, or that the sale of Russian weapons to Syria is helping to fuel the crisis there. However, those arming the Syrian opposition, including Saudi Arabia, cannot be regarded as any more progressive than Russia. The emerging consensus, reflected in the UK Parliament's vote of last week, that the crisis requires multi-lateral action led by the United Nations was finely articulated by the UN's former Chief Weapons Inspector, Hans Blix, this morning on BBC Radio 4's Today Programme. Blix called into question former British prime minister Tony Blair's role as a "protagonist for intervention" in Syria, presumably in his capacity as Middle East Peace Envoy. I say "presumably" because it is never very clear whose interests Blair represents, other than his own. What is quite remarkable is that one with a record on the international scene arguably even more ambiguous than that of Mr Putin should still be treated so uncritically by the BBC and many others.

FAT CAT PLAYS WITH OSBORNE & BALLS PUPPETS

As someone providing retirement care for a former working cat - chief pest controller at a farm business (sadly, the well-to-do owner did not provide her with a pension) - I just love this Gary Barker cartoon from The Times. Not usually a reader of the paper, I only discovered the sketch this morning whilst googling a story about the shadow chancellor being offered up by Labour for a large transfer fee to an unspecified foreign government in order to tackle the Party's financial deficit left by the withdrawal of trade union funding. I was so looking forward to Ed Balls disappearing off the scene, but, unfortunately, could not find any hard evidence of the scoop, although there may be another political caricature along these lines somewhere in today's press. However, Barker's "Smoke v Mirrors" cartoon encapsulates so well the shadow-boxing that takes place between Chancellor George Osborne and his Labour opposition Ed Balls around the subject of the British economy, that my disappointment is almost overcome.

WEF GLOBAL COMPETITIVENESS INDEX 2013-14

The World Economic Forum Global Competitiveness Index 2013-14, published yesterday, has the following top 10 ranking:

1. Switzerland
2. Singapore
3. Finland
4. Germany
5. United States
6. Sweden
7. Hong Kong SAR
8. Netherlands
9. Japan
10. United Kingdom

Britain's position in the "Country Profile Highlights" is described thus:

"The United Kingdom (10th) rounds out the top 10, falling by two places in this year’s assessment. The country deteriorates slightly in several areas, most notably its macroeconomic environment and its financial markets. Overall, the United Kingdom benefits from clear strengths such as the efficiency of its labor market (5th), in sharp contrast to the rigidity of those of many other European countries. The country continues to have sophisticated (9th) and innovative (12th) businesses that are highly adept at harnessing the latest technologies for productivity improvements and operating in a very large market (it is ranked 6th for market size). The highly developed financial market also remains a strength overall, despite some weakening since last year. All these characteristics are important for spurring productivity enhancements. On the other hand, the country’s macroeconomic environment (115th, down from 85th two years ago) represents the greatest drag on its competitiveness, with a fiscal deficit above 8 percent in 2012, an increase of over 7 percentage points in public debt amounting to 90.3 percent of GDP in 2012 (136th), and a comparatively low national savings rate (10.8 percent of GDP in 2012, 122nd)."

The full report is available at http://reports.weforum.org/the-global-competitiveness-report-2013-2014

ANGELA MERKEL: GOVERNMENT IS FOR GROWN-UPS

One of the most annoying aspects of New Labour's zenith, fortunately now long passed, was its adulation by journalists who should have known better. Amongst the most fawning of these was the Financial Times senior editor Phillip Stephens, who wrote a biography of former prime minister Blair which has been summed up as "engaging and slickly presented but ultimately lacking in depth". Sounds very New Labour! Along with Blair, Stephens was sounding off last week about Britain's response to the crisis in Syria. Thankfully, we now live in a post-Blair world where parliamentary democracy might actually mean something.

I say "might" because we are not there yet. At the heart of New Labour was a fundamental confusion between politics and government, from which the present Coalition has not yet fully emerged. The ultimate author of this confusion was probably Peter Mandelson rather than Tony Blair. Indeed, Mandelson's autobiography, "The Third Man" published in 2010, is a very good book about politics, but weak on government. As a potted history of the Labour Party from the 1970s it is excellent. Similarly, if one enjoys chintzy insights into the private lives of politicians, the book is eminently readable. However, nowhere does New Labour emerge in it as a credible party of government, and "The Third Man" often comes across as an elegantly written teen diary, whose middle youth protagonists are endlessly pre-occupied with their group status and latest relationship.

To some extent New Labour was also a coalition in all but name, with Lord Mandelson as its king-maker. We now have a genuine Coalition of political expediency and weak government. This has more to do with the composition of the present coalition, rather than the weakness of coalition government per se. Ministerial positions have tended to be allocated to those most politically acceptable to their party leaders, rather than to those best equipped to make the government work for the nation. The same was also true of New Labour. The result is that some of the most able people are excluded from power and thus seek to undermine it. Who ever leads the next government, therefore, needs to look elsewhere for models of coalition leadership, for there is a good chance that the UK (or England, Wales and Northern Ireland) could have another one after the next election. 

If Blair was the defining European politician in the early years of the twentieth century, the German Chancellor Merkel has succeeded him in this role, but through substance rather than spin. The new generation of British politicians would do well to look to her style of leadership at home and abroad. Whilst this leadership is not without critics, particularly in those parts of the continent which have borne the brunt of European Union austerity measures to tackle the sovereign debt crisis, it has demonstrated the difference between politics and government. I was surprised that Angela Merkel hardly receives a mention in his autobiography, although Lord Mandelson was European Trade Commissioner when she came to power. His failure to recognise a woman who would emerge as one of the world's most powerful leaders, and a country whose economy was very much on the ascendant, clearly demonstrates that successful government requires grown-ups (and a mature media) to run it.

THE NEW BRITISH (AND US) ECONOMIC DISEASE

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_net_exports 

The British are fond of blaming Europe for regulations which hamper British competitiveness. Environmental legislation is an increasingly popular target for Conservative politicians, and even more so for the United Kingdom Independence Party. Similarly, I note that there are many in the United States who like to blame increasing regulation to protect the environment for the country's declining status as an exporter. In this context, the above link to Wikipedia's "list of countries by net exports", based on World Trade Organisation data, should help reframe the issue of national export competitiveness. For it is, in fact, the European Union which is the world's largest net exporter, due largely to the success of Germany which comes second, followed by China. The US and the UK, on the other hand, are the first and second largest net importers in the world. From a domestic perspective - I have not visited the US for many years - this status now constitutes a "British Disease" as much as the malady of that name in the 1970s. According to an article on the German www.zum.de website the original "British Disease refers to the low industrial productivity and frequent labor strifes that plagued Britain in the 1960s and 1970s".* This earlier malady required  transformational government, of the kind I do not yet see any prospect of in the UK, or the United States for that matter. This is a real problem because, I would argue, many of the transformations that have occurred since the 1970s now need to be reversed. 

 * Full article http://www.zum.de/whkmla/sp/changhyun/Thatcher70s2.html

SAVING MONEY AND THE ENVIRONMENT

Some recent virtual exchanges have encouraged me to ponder the question: "What 's the point of environmentalism?"; and I shall, hopefully with some humour, post on this subject shortly. In the meantime, I'm going to suggest that one function of environmentalism, based upon my own experience, is to help governments, commercial businesses and individuals save money. Over the nearly 30 years I have been professionally involved with planning and environmental issues, the financial stakes have often been high. As a consequence, I have directly helped save the exchequer at least £0.5 billion, and probably prevented one major corporate bankruptcy. Whilst this may be relatively small beer in an age of "Big Banking" and public sector  profligacy (yes, I'm afraid it still goes on!), for most people and businesses (most being small) this is a very large sum of money.

The much greater sums of public money required for the proposed new HS2 high speed rail link are now increasingly being called in to question, with the Institute of Directors being the latest organisation to challenge the project's economic value and financial viability. However, such objections have been around since the proposal first surfaced under the previous government. That it did so without a full appraisal of possible alternative options for increasing rail capacity and improving the wider UK transport network is simply testimony to the flawed project management culture of many public institutions, in this case the Department for Transport. Again in my experience, environmental objections to major projects, or portfolios, have often served to highlight the weakness of the planning and appraisal process, which frequently overlooks a number of key issues. This has certainly happened with HS2, where those whose objections are primarily environmental have done a sterling job in highlighting other flaws associated with the proposal.

LABOUR'S NEW OUTBREAK OF COMMON SENSE?

I've enjoyed reading the early conspiracy thrillers of Eric Ambler over the summer. A twentieth century novelist of the sensible Left, Ambler writes in straightforward and unpretentious style which may be one of the reasons why his work is experiencing a comeback.

Ambler's novels are full of shysters - defined in the Wikipedia as "someone who acts in a disreputable, unethical, or unscrupulous way, especially in the practice of law, politics or business." This may be another reason why his novels speaks to the present age.

This brings me to the subject of the British Labour Party. The biggest challenges for Ed Miliband, I would suggest, will be to demonstrate that he also belongs to the sensible Left and that he can keep the shysters at bay. Labour also needs to encourage a straightforward and unpretentious public discourse, even if this has become alien to modern British political culture.

Although it is still early days, there seems to be some evidence that the party could renew itself along these lines. On the national scene, recent straight-talking on the proposed high speed rail link between London and the north of England, notwithstanding that Labour came up with this idea in the first place, is to be applauded.

Similarly in my local area of Worcester, a Labour-run coalition involving the Lib-Dems and Greens has started to make sensible-sounding proposals to re-prioritise urban regeneration and sustainable transport planning. Let's just hope the shysters don't derail these!

Returning to the novels of Eric Ambler, these have another lesson for the contemporary British Labour Party: the need for an objective national understanding of international politics, particularly those of Europe. I may be over-optimistic, but it strikes me that this is something which a Labour-led coalition government might just be able to deliver.

PS. Since my posting, a fellow participant in the recent Coursera Introduction to the Law of the EU The Law of the European Union: An Introduction | Coursera has provided the following link to an article in the New York Times about Britain's relationship with Europe: http://www.nytimes.com/2013/08/23/opinion/cohen-britains-brussels-syndrome.html?hp&_r=0

THE EUROPEAN UNION IN GLOBAL GOVERNANCE

https://www.iversity.org/courses/the-european-union-in-global-governance

For anyone who would like a higher level of discourse on the future of the European Union than can currently be found in the UK, it might be worth checking out this Massive Open Online Course being run by the Berlin-based Iversity in the Autumn (see above link).

In the meantime, whilst both the UK Conservative and Labour Parties distracted themselves separately with tribal politics, The Economist magazine provided an interesting overview of the European economy:

European economy guide: Taking Europe's pulse | The Economist

SEX, DRUGS AND ROCK'N ROLL, OLD LADY?

The Old Lady of Threadneedle Street or Bank of England
(Image: Wikipedia)

When new Governor of the Bank of England Mark Carney travelled by public transport (Well done Sir!) for his first day at work last Monday, the media depicted a "rock star banker" who, it had to be said, looked more than a little baggy under the eyes. However, it seems that Mr Carney was recovering not from a weekend of Sex, Drugs and Rock'n Roll at Glastonbury (for whose gathering this year he was probably a key demographic) but a weekend game of cricket organised by his new employer: at which he was only a spectator, incidentally.

Nevertheless, a working week that had began with Mr Carney looking somewhat downbeat ended with a stock market roll, when the Old Lady of Threadneedle Street agreed to maintain interest rates and quantitative easing (or pumping £375billion into the UK economy) for her new suitor. Still, relationships which begin on a high can still end on the rocks, and many will be wondering whether Mr Carney's rock star credentials carry the financial prudence of Mick Jagger, or a penchant for pleasing political mistresses of all parties. The fact that the new Bank of England Governor is sweetheart to both George Osborne and Ed Balls - I jest not! - may also set many wondering whether the addictive rhythm of boom and bust which has so dominated the British economy is indeed here to stay.

THE IRON LADIES: THATCHER AND MERKEL

Angela Merkel signs a book of condolence for Margaret Thatcher in Berlin (Getty Images)

It is not without irony, or perhaps some higher synchronicity, that British Prime Minister David Cameron's series of meetings with European leaders last week was disrupted by the death of Baroness Thatcher, and his visit to German Chancellor Angela Merkel had to be re-scheduled.

That Mr Cameron should find himself caught between the passing of former British prime minister Thatcher and the present leader of both a united Germany and, arguably, a Europe on the brink of greater union does, however, throw powerful light on modern political history. For whilst our Prime Minister may privately regard himself as "the Heir to Blair", it is surely the German Chancellor who is heiress of the original "Iron Lady's" drive for democratic liberation of the former Communist Europe where Angela Merkel spent her earlier life. That those liberated from Communist rule should now look to a strengthened European Union is, of course, an historical legacy which Baroness Thatcher did not anticipate, and a current political predicament for Britain and Mr Cameron.

MOOCS GOOD FOR LITTLE ENGLANDER'S SOUL

For some years now I've felt more and more like a "Little Englander", or someone lacking a proper view from afar on our shores. This is partly the fault of the British media, notably the BBC, whose coverage of international news is often rather parochial. I'm therefore delighted to have discovered Coursera - www.coursera.org - who offer MOOCs, or Massive Open Online Courses, from some of the world's leading universities for free. Check them out!