Dunford Daily

Efficiency Store

2009-08-19T15:05:00.000-07:00

efficiencystore.co.uk

Nationalise banks now!

2009-01-18T08:52:00.000-08:00

Back from my extended blogging xmas break (just in case anyone checked recently).

I have said for a number of weeks that HMG should free up the UK credit markets by making its implicit guarantee to ensure the solvency of the UK banking system explicit by nationalising it outright. I won't attempt to present a coherent and forceful argument based on my half-completed graduate diploma in economics - so i suggest you read this article by the Maverecon Willem Buiter, who presents a compelling and just-about accessible case.

The thing that frustrates me on this is that so much of the opposition to nationalisation has been built on the fact that all modern UK politicians are ideologically allergic to the concept, rather than a pragmatic analysis of the necessary steps to get cash flowing. Everyone in this debate has lacked a big idea to get the banks lending to each-other and the broader economy, so it would seem that seizing control of the banks temporarily is the only option left if we are to limit in any significant way the credit-crunch fallout.

California looks like it could rectify the tyrany of the homophobic majority; we should all learn a lesson on the shortcomings of direct democracy

2008-12-20T04:46:00.000-08:00

The Californian Attorney General has come out urging a repeal of proposition 8 banning same sex marriage that was passed by a 52% majority during the federal elections in November. He has come to the conclusion that the proposition violates the state's constitution, which under article 1 guarantees individual liberty including the right to marry.

This case shows how incredibly dangerous referenda can be given the lack of information at the disposal of voters, variability in turn-out, a lack of consideration of the full calculus and utility of policy across the full breadth of government, and the majority's (or even worse vocal and active minority's) propensity to disregard the rights of minorities.

In our country the recent referendum in Manchester that saw the congestion charge proposal emphatically rejected showed how policies that require some at first difficult behaviour change but will result in positive long-term results (in this case upholding the public's rights to clean, particulate free city centres) can be blocked by a vocal, energised minority.

There is a reason that western democracies (barring the Swiss) are representative rather than direct. Imagine if every government revenue raising proposal was put to a vote, what state would the government finances be in.

Climate change policy is similarly unsuited to public decision making; witness the nimby caused delays to wind farm planning applications. If a government thinks a policy or measure is in our long-term interest it should implement it, if we think on balance it has got the majority of these decisions wrong we can vote it out at the next election.

Greek riots, the start of something big?

2008-12-08T15:10:00.000-08:00

I think the riots in Greece could be hugely significant. They may represent something of a tipping point. As is Italy, Greece is a country plagued with corruption (lying to get in to the Euro for example, and repeated fraud of the Common Agricultural Policy), a sclerotic innefficient economy, rubbish governmental insitutions, and a reasonably well educated well travelled and frustrated younger generation.

The EU has been very complacent about these internal contradications across the"Union built of democracies".. now I think the trouble stored up could explode.

We need to wake up to reality to ensure that Copenhagen is not Doha MK II

2008-12-08T15:00:00.000-08:00

Just wrote the below, not sure what I'm going to do with it. Probably needs a redraft and then I may use it at work if i can,. but feel free to give me your thoughts.

The globe is faced with great change and profound challenges. Dealing with the challenges, such as climate change, needs us to wake up to the changes that have irrevocably changed the global political landscape.

Failure to recognise the realities of a new emerging global settlement was behind the collapse in July this year of the interminable Doha Round of world trade talks. It is vital that a lesson is learnt from these talks and the new reality of the global balance of power is priced into our approach to the global climate change talks, currently sitting in Poznan, Poland but which will truly only get going in the new year and culminate in Copenhagen in December 2009.

As in the climate change talks, the Doha Round saw the EU play the role of the good global citizen, coming in with what was, given the shackles applied by the French, a generous offer on agricultural market access. Also like in the climate change negotiations the US came to the party late, though it was more for reasons of a President seeking to notch a success on a legacy dominated by failure, rather than any policy stance built conviction. Also like the climate change talks India and China (along with Brazil) were central to achieving a positive outcome. However, while ostensibly cognisant of this reality, the developed country alliance arrogantly assumed that when push came to shove that the emerging powers would play ball as they had in the previous set of WTO talks concluded in 1992 - the Uruguay Round where strides were made in opening up markets in industrial goods and services where developed countries were strong, while agricultural markets where they were relatively weak were left closed by tariffs and distorted by subsidies.

Having visited the WTO in the months running up to the July Ministerial the course of the negotiations was eminently predictable. The Indian ambassador told us that the talks were “political”; the Indians couldn’t be seen to get a worse result than that gained by the US. Similarly, we were reminded by the Chinese ambassador that as their economy was set to grow at over 10% for the foreseeable future they didn’t need a deal and that they wouldn’t be dictated to by the US political timetable. In the end, against a backdrop of looming Indian elections (to be held by April 2009) and a poor US offer to limit their agricultural subsidies, the talks collapsed - ostensibly, because India failed to gain concessions to protect its farmers.

The truth was that the US and EU wanted and needed a deal more than the Indians and Chinese. The Indians, finding themselves in a position where the concessions were theirs to give were holding out for bigger rewards.

The trade and climate change negotiations are seen not as a change in tariff levels or caps on emissions levels, but as a chance to over-turn five centuries of Western pre-eminence, banish memories of subordination during colonial years, and move beyond underwhelming years like those of the Hindu rate of economic growth in India. And of course aligned with this dynamic in the context of the climate change negotiations is a sense of injustice felt because some are asking them to put the brakes on as their industrial revolution is in full flow when we could pollute with gay abandon during ours.

Of course the truth is that the Chinese and Indians fully understand that they will be damaged severely by climate change through Himalayan glacial melt, sea-level rise, floods in some regions and droughts in others, and are beginning to address their own emissions. They also know that these policies will need to be supported by concerted global action to have an impact. This will not however prevent them from exploiting the West’s position as demandeur, to coin a trade negotiationism, to secure themselves a place at the centre of global power brokerage.

In order for climate-change negotiations to succeed the broader political realities must be addressed. So along with a comprehensive financial and capacity building package for India, China and developing countries more broadly, there must be a package of measures which say; “you’ve arrived, the world’s changed and you’re now at the top-table”. We could start by reinventing the G8 by creating a body which doesn’t have a number as large as 20 or a plus in the title, and how about placing India and Brazil on the UN Security Council, and heaven forbid locating a major international institution in an emerging country.

The returns on this more inclusive approach will not just come in the form of lines in a sub-section of a treaty but will also set up an essential relationship to exchange expertise and to buy and sell the low-carbon innovations of the future – who do you think is going to be best placed to mass-produce wind turbine blades and photovoltaic panels? Or indeed, who is producing the lions share of the world’s science and technology graduates?

The West needs to realise that the post world war II settlement is now irrelevant and has been for some time. We need to move on and for the sake of our planet the faster the better.

Are SWFs ready to pounce? perhaps we should get ready

2008-11-26T15:04:00.000-08:00

Plenty more gloom in today regarding the economy. Woolies and MFI have folded (David Mitchell in Sunday's Observer had it about right I'd say), the US Fed have found silly billions to bail out Citigroup, but the article that caught my eye concerned sovereign wealth funds and was in today's Times:

Speaking at the Dubai International Financial Centre conference yesterday, Mr al-Ansari (CEO of the Dubai Investment Corp) said that falling stock prices in the West could provide some Gulf countries with an opportunity to develop their own economies. Investing in technology and manufacturing companies would allow these states to encourage operations to be moved to the Gulf, which would provide jobs for the region's rapidly growing population. “To become the largest shareholders in the ten largest companies in the world would cost about $50 billion at present and that's actually not a lot of money,” he said. “Imagine the power and influence this region would have if we were the shareholders in the ten, twenty, thirty largest companies in the world.”

Our government has long touted the UK's credentials as being "open for business" as far as foreign investors are concerned. We have scoffed at those protectionist Yanks who have their CIFIUS committee that can vetoe foreign investment as it did when Dubai Ports were set to assume control of US ports.

The UK Enterprise Act of 2002 allows government to intervene where there is a threat to the national public interest posed by a foreign acquisition of a UK entity, so far these powers have been used incredibly sparingly, and indeed while powerful, they are themselves checked by the EC Merger Regulation (article 21 if I remember rightly) which is itself subject to broader EU jurisprudence surrounding free movement of capital. Now, if a middle eastern, or Chinese government for the matter was to mount a hostile takeover of GSK, AstraZeneca, Rolls-Royce, or any other of our major "value-added" companies, what would we do? What could we do? would the reputational damage to the UK as an investment environment outweigh the downside of all that IP being ripped out? It's bloody hard to quantify, but someone ought to start thinking about it.

Yes we can! But through party politics?

2008-11-20T12:54:00.000-08:00

Two nights, two very different meetings. I think that one may represent the past and the other the future, and this poses political parties, especially the Labour Party a difficult challenge.

Last night was my Constituency Labour Party General Council (or CLP GC to those of you into that type of thing). We had a speaker from the Labour party National Executive Committee (the "NEC") who referred to a desire within the party hierarchy to build a Barack Obamaesque party campaign for "change"- an energised movement based on small donations and mass participation. However, a glance around the room and the general nature of the conversation through the rest of the evening didn't make that possibility seem imminent or particularly likely. If you add to that our guest's elucidation of the byzantine structures of the Labour Party, and the rather uninspiring make-up of both front benches in the House of Commons, and one is rather likely to conclude that "no we can't".

Tonight, I was invited to a networking event for social entrepreneurs at the Aldridge Foundation. What the Aldridge Foundation are doing in their academy schools which have an entrepreneurship specialism and through broader mentoring and social entrepreneurship is impressive, but there were also other very impressive "change makers" in the room. Notably Mark Johnson, a reformed convict that now searches out those most excluded from society such as prisoners and young people not in education and empowers them through mentoring and dialogue - Mark also writes for the Guardian and as you'll see from his website he has written a best-selling memoir. Other highlights included a for profit leadership training provider, Future Foundations, that is running summer schools for potential future leaders from excluded sections of society, and a programme, Action Reaction seeking to broaden the aspirational horizons of young people around London. Oh, and I should also mention Bio Group, doing some great stuff on the sustainable energy front.

This seemed to be a bunch of individuals thinking "yes we can" and acting accordingly. As someone who dabbles with charidy work from time to time, I can actually say this could have potentially been a life altering event - yes life altering. What was on the face of it a relatively dry and pretty sparsely attended "networking event" actually for me proved to be a great lesson in what those of us who give a shit can do if we put our minds to it.

For the political amongst us this poses a very tricky question. At my party meeting on Wednesday the five young people in the room, including me, were there, yes because they care, but also because they have political ambitions. The truth is that other young people who want to make a difference seek to do it in other, more direct ways.

How to deal with this. One answer could be that it is no longer good enough to go around handing out leaflets telling people what you stand for, or what you are going to do, rather you the local party could undertake local projects be they social or environmental to make a difference and in doing so conveying a clearer message and recruiting more of those that just give a shit as opposed to seeking political office and who do not want to sit through interminable meetings approving minutes/accounts. Another could be that social entrepreneurs, ngos and campaign groups are the future, perhaps we have to settle for a looser affiliation of all these groups to a new type of left wing politics, with a less constrained, insider favouring political party system, aided by a system of primary elections for candidates and more open and interactive debate.

However, while party politics will doubtless constantly try and reinvent itself over the next decade, social entrepreneurs will continue to play an ever more transformative role in our communities. After tonight, I'm convinced.

How to escape the credit crunch

2008-11-16T13:40:00.001-08:00

Move to Antartica for 2 and a half years. Rob Webster is a friend of a friend/friend whose brilliant web-page captures the beauty,romance, and harshness of Antartica and the appeal of isolation. A must-view.

Its game on!

2008-11-16T05:54:00.000-08:00

Today's Sunday Times poll puts Labour on 36% and the Tories on 41%. With Gordon saving the world and the Tories struggling to project anything approaching assuredness and vision on the economy (as explained by my friend Mario Lopez) it is very much all to play for. It's still a massive challenge but bring it on!

Regulate! says Soros

2008-11-15T03:58:00.000-08:00

I was interested to read George Soros's testimony to the House of Representatives Oversight Committee given last Thursday, read the whole thing here. Some of the insights are telling:

This remarkable sequence of events can be understood only if we abandon the prevailing theory of market behavior. As a way of explaining financial markets, I propose an alternative paradigm that differs from the current one in two respects. First, financial markets do not reflect prevailing conditions accurately; they provide a picture that is always biased or distorted in one way or another. Second, the distorted views held by market participants and expressed in market prices can, under certain circumstances, affect the so-called fundamentals that market prices are supposed to reflect. This two-way circular connection between market prices and the underlying reality I call reflexivity.

While the two-way connection is present at all times, it is only occasionally, and in special circumstances, that it gives rise to financial crises. Usually markets correct their own mistakes, but occasionally there is a misconception or misinterpretation that finds a way to reinforce a trend that is already present in reality and by doing so it also reinforces itself. Such self-reinforcing processes may carry markets into far-from-equilibrium territory. Unless something happens to abort the reflexive interaction sooner, it may persist until the misconception becomes so glaring that it has to be recognized as such. When that happens the trend becomes unsustainable and when it is reversed the self-reinforcing process starts working in the opposite direction, causing a sharp downward movement.

Surely the "until something happens to stop is" refers to regulation, but of regulators Soros comments:

It is important to recognize that regulators base their decisions on a distorted view
of reality just as much as market participants-perhaps even more so because regulators are not only human but also bureaucratic and subject to political influences. So the interplay between regulators and market participants is also reflexive in character. In contrast to bubbles, which occur only infrequently, the cat-and-mouse game between regulators and markets goes on continuously. As a consequence reflexivity is at work at all times and it is a mistake to ignore its influence. Yet that is exactly what the prevailing theory of financial markets has done and that mistake is ultimately responsible for the severity of the current crisis.....

.....The misconception is derived from the prevailing theory of financial markets, which, as mentioned earlier, holds that financial markets tend toward equilibrium and that deviations are random and can be attributed to external causes. This theory has been used to justify the belief that the pursuit of self-interest should be given free rein and markets should be deregulated. I call that belief market fundamentalism and claim that it employs false logic. Just because regulations and all other forms of governmental interventions have proven to be faulty, it does not follow that markets are perfect.

...The cat-and-mouse game between regulators and market participants is already ongoing, but its true nature has not yet been acknowledged. Alan Greenspan was a past master of manipulation with his Delphic utterances, but instead of acknowledging what he was doing he pretended that he was merely a passive observer of the facts. Reflexivity remained a state secret.

That is why the super-bubble could develop so far during his tenure. Since money and credit do not move in lockstep and asset bubbles cannot be controlled purely by monetary means, additional tools must be employed, or more accurately reactivated, since they were in active use in the 1950s and 1960s. I refer to variable margin requirements and minimal capital requirements, which are meant to control the amount of leverage market participants can employ. Central banks even used to issue guidance to banks about how they should allocate loans to specific sectors of the economy. Such directives may be preferable to the blunt instruments of monetary policy in combating "irrational exuberance" in particular sectors, such as information technology or real estate.

His conclusion is that the light touch regime put in place under the Basel II banking regulations was an "aberration", and that a Basel III agreement was needed. It is a good thing that Gordon Brown is now publicly supporting a stiffer international regulatory regime even if he has spent the past decade protecting the UK and the City's light touch competitive advantage (and what an advantage it has transpired to be!). Though John Hilary questions Gordon's private commitment to such changes in this rather muddled article here on Comment is free.

McCain the good guy, remember him?!

2008-11-13T14:08:00.000-08:00

A great article here in the New Yorker documenting McCain's fall from being the guy who wouldn't "take the low road to the highest office in this land", to the mud slinging opportunist we saw on the 2008 Presidential campaign trail.

The future: China and India (original title I know!)

2008-11-12T13:43:00.000-08:00

An event I attended tonight reminded me of just what a force India and China and especially the people of those countries are going to be over the next century. My job affords me occasional encounters with Chinese or Indian businessmen or diplomats. Including tonight, three notable occasions stick in my mind:

1. Arun Sarin CEO of Vodafone speaking at a CBI India Roundtable last October told the audience how Vodafone had gone into India in order to exploit the market opportunities, but had actually extracted more valuable results from India in learning from the business processes that the Indian part of the organisation had adopted. He told us that the average cost per minute to Vodafone of a phonecall minute in Europe was 14 cents, in India it was 3 cents. He said that only 30% of this difference could be accounted for by labour costs, the rest was a result of the way they had outsourced and configured their operations. The inimitable Vijay Malia, self styled Indian Richard Branson, spoke at the same event and gave us a display of Indian self confidence and some enlightening insights into the fiercly and outwardly aspirational Indian middle-class.

2. On a work trip to the WTO earlier this year I met with the Indian and Chinese Ambassadors to the WTO. Both gave the same message; we are not going to be dictated to by US and EU political agendas. The impressive Indian ambassador clearly stated that their domestic politics and poor were far more important than any abstract notion of global public goods, or the benefits of free trade. The Chinese were the major surprise however. Not only was their ambassador massively on top of the detail as expected, but he was positively jovial, having my delegation of European Business representatives in stiches and almost goading us about how China didn't need a trade deal while it was growing annually at 10%+.

3. So tonight, arguably not as major names but still significant stories, and stories that show that even in a low-carbon economy India and China will give us more than a run for our money. Rajeev Dubey told us about Mahindra and Mahindra , a farm equipment and do everything conglomerete from India. The firm is in the process of innovating a 100% biodiesel tractor, working on low-carbon joint ventures with BT and Shell, innovating a hydrogen fuelled four wheel drive, seeking to build 4 sustainable cities around India, and is taking an incredibly sustainable approach to business generally. Next up was Professor C S Kiang from Peking University. He spoke incredibly eloquently, enthuisiatically and endearingly about China's approach to climate change. Key message being; they are beginning to act on climate change. SARS he said was something of a wake-up call on the need for sustainablity to become part of Chinese growth. It now has ambitious renewable energy and energy efficiency targets, and is becoming a power house in areas such as photovoltaics and is generally putting the UK to shame where renewables are concerned.

So, what does this all mean. It means that we should stop ridiculous old-world Western love-ins like the G8 and establish a new entity including India and China (without a plus in the title). And respond to the fact that these countries are moving. This movement can be harnessed, collaborated with, and benefited from, but only if we are cognisant of the new realities and are willing to engage them in a geniunely two way conversation about our common future. Otherwise we may not be a significant part of that future.

Sky news, Sky views, or Sky moral judge?

2008-11-12T12:58:00.001-08:00

This isn't the type of thing I'd normally blog on... but Sky News's coverage last night of 13 year old Leukemia sufferer Hannah Jones's decision not to have potentially life-saving heart surgery made me seriously question the channel's editorial approach. They made the type of question that our Law Lords would probably spend days pondering on seem like a "no brainer" (or whatever the moral equivalent would be; a "no hearter"?).

In this story a girl of 13 who has undergone surgery most years since she has been born has decided that she doesn't want to go through the trauma of surgery again, and has therefore refused to have a heart operation that could either make her better, or could slightly worsen her condition.

Sky's coverage had interviews with the child and the parents, it failed to represent any alternative opinions or any medical expertise, and laid into a travel insurance company for asking "insensitive questions" about the girl's health when selling the family a policy.

The truth is without knowing the full facts we can't say whether this girl of 13 should have the right to choose to die, but what we do know is that 13 year old girls probably do not always make the decisions that are right for them, and that parents don't have an unblemished track record either.

We also know that society, and doctors as the agent of society in this context have a responsibility to protect life. I agree this responsibility should not be interpreted absolutely - and understand the actions of Daniel James's parents in letting him die - but the media have a duty to relay very challenging and difficult moral quandaries as just that, and not some outrage inflicted upon one side or the other.

British politics is not classest or racist its just structurally exclusionary

2008-11-09T04:40:00.000-08:00

Trevor Phillips's claim earlier in the week that the Labour Party is institutionally racist, and that there could not be a British Obama, and this article in today's Observer by Rapheal Behr about a new class war, highlight how British politics, beyond a tokenistic effort, is still yet to become fully inclusive and representative.

However, I do not think this is a result of a conscious effort by those in authority to discriminate against these groups. Rather, it is a symptom of a political system which has so few platforms for exposure and avenues for advancement that the prospect of anyone beyond a core four or five individuals within a party advancing to positions of political power is severely limited.

Take Obama. He would have received a reasonable degree of exposure on local media as an Illinois State Senator, he then took advantage of the platform presented to him at the 2004 convention, and then proved himself further as one of only 100 very well-resourced Senators, in a very powerful house that actually gets to write legislation.

The story can be repeated time and again in US politics, for Mayors, Governors, House and Senate Committee Chairs, even for high-profile military figures like Colin Powell. Beyond the London Mayorship and the Welsh, Scottish and N Irish first Ministers, one cannot think of any British equivalents.

The up-shot is that the route to power in the UK is so limited, and so determined by the machinations of party political cloak and dagger, that politicians sub-consciously use every available proxy to ensure their relative position in the party; whether that be race, sex or class. An associated outcome is also a poverty of individual thinking or policy experimentation creating a clone political class that inevitably agree with orthodoxy to ensure advancement, who then implement centralised and top-down solutions when in power.

The answer is therefore, Trevor, lets not seek headlines by using terms like "institutionally racist", because no-one can believe that that is the case in the Labour Party. Rather lets look at the institutions that will allow those of all origins to rise to positions of power and prominence, and make us all think "yes we can!".

Yeah! Obama wins: and proves that given a vision Turkeys will vote for xmas!

2008-11-06T13:29:00.000-08:00

Awesome!

Also awesome is the fact that 54% of those earning over $200k voted for him. This confirms something I have often said (but not always believed). that if you can powerfully and honestly articulate a sense of vision and common purpose, people will buy into it even if that means it will hit them in the pocket.

I know in this country we are running scared since the 1992 50% top rate "lost" us that election. But surely at this time, where the top 10% will be fine and the bottom 20% are going to be hurting, we can pull the country together in one big economic push to get us out of this slump that also involves either a 50% rate for over £100k earners, or a "philanthropy act" (something that I have discussed elsewhere, but which I will blog on soon, that would have the same impact but with a little more buy-in from those giving).

I have felt for months that the conditions are ripe to tax mega-earners. However, my argument has always been that it'll be popular with the Daily Mail reader who wants to whack fat cats. But that rationale belongs to the politics of division, of winners and losers. Far more powerful is the politics of unity and hope as articulated by Obama. And if we genuinely feel that in the long-run it benefits us all, why not say it?

Obama infomercial shows importance of the human touch

2008-11-01T08:56:00.001-07:00

I finally watched the Obama infomercial yesterday (yes at work). Having been initially sceptical about the prospect of a 30 min party political broadcast I can say I was very impressed. It was powerful stuff - this Leah McElrath article explains why - and illustrated how, generally, American politicians are much more affective at connecting political messages with human experience (even if they rarely doing anything effectual to change that human experience once in office).

The equivalent in recent years in the UK would have been the Tony and Gordon office love-in party political broadcast from the 2005 election, which by comparison was self-indulgent drivel. While politics is sadly always about self advancement to a degree, you must realise that it is about the voters and what they are going through, not about how smart and clever you and your policies are.

Serious economic times, bring a need for a fiscal reality check and some serious revenue generation innovation

2008-10-20T14:42:00.000-07:00

Rhetoric great, delivery poor. That would be the best way to sum up our approach to the major global crises that are unfolding around us.

Whether it be follow through on the UN Milllenium Development Goals, our approach to global climate change, or attempts to Europeanise or Globalise financial market regulation - the report card would say could do a lot better!

The truth is that in all of these spheres domestic concerns and priorities have always trumped the global long-term interest, which demands that we collaborate. Rather than bemoan this fact, and preach that we really ought to develop a greater global conscience, there is a need to accept this reality and create financial mechanisms that are out of the reach of domestic politicians, and not reliant upon the political weather in the developed world facilitating their on-going support.

The US is the best example of the folly of thinking that any other approach is possible. The budgetary process in the US is famously tortuous, open to abuse by individual Congressman and interests, and in recent times famously in defecit. A two year election-cycle for representatives, means their focus is naturally on their Congressional District not Africa, or the Atmosphere.

It is therefore no surprise that the US is in no danger of delivering 0.7% of GDP in development assistance anytime soon, let alone of coming up with the multi-billion dollars of finance for de-carbonisation of growth in the developing world which will be reqiured to agree a succesor to the Kyoto Protocol in Copenhagen next December - give money to China, you've gotta be kiddin!

Breaking free of this reliance on budgetary processes (which will become increasingly under pressure post crunch) there is a need to innovate self sustaining mechanisms to generate such finance, which preferably do so by discouraging a global bad in order to generate the finance to deliver global global goods.

There are two examples from seperate policy areas, that are far from pie in the sky and for which windows of opportunity are in the process of being opened:

1. The good old Tobin tax - a miniscule levy on cross border currency transactions addressing the destructive effect of cross-border speculative currency trades - could generate billions of dollars to go into multilateral funds to acheive the MDGs. At this time a Tobin tax would be politically sellable (it would take pressure off the public purse and cut banker's bonuses) and, while not addressing the root cause of the crunch, would add a layer of stability to financial markets and the global economy.

2. The auctioning of global carbon allowances - which would mean countries and/or companies would have to buy allowances to allow them to emit carbon into the atmophere - could generate billions to go toward decarbonising economic growth in places like China and India, and could support the development of vital breakthrough technologies such as carbon capture and storage. At the moment allowances are simply granted to countries, based upon negotiated levels, who then manage their own emissions reductions programmes, this approach would see them paid for. The EU Emissions Trading Scheme from 2012 will move towards full auctioning of allowances, therefore a regional blueprint could potentially be transposed to the global level, creating a major source of revenue to counter the most presing challenge of our time.....

..... on the other hand we could leave it to Congress to sort out!

Time for voluntary revolution to take up labour market slack

2008-10-15T13:57:00.000-07:00

An idea: We are about to the enter the biggest recession of recent times. We are also in some of the least socially conscious times certainly for the past 60 and perhaps 100 years.

Our current society has shown that pursuit of financial well-being does not equate with personal or societal well being. There is a need for the introduction of new forces to dictate incentives within our society.

There are also about to be an absolute shed load of job losses. Now, why don't we, halve the number of people that need to be laid off by offering people the opportunity to work part-time, leaving them free either to volunteer perhaps in a community or environmental project, perhaps starting their own enterprises, profit making or social, even spending more time with family, elderly or young. The company would pay the individual part-time wages, and where needed the government could offer some support to make up the deficit.

The result could be the largest dissemination of skills, knowledge, leadership, creation of role models, and general build up of social capital in living memory.

McCain the second hand car salesman;"my friend"

2008-10-08T13:26:00.000-07:00

"Would you like to buy this lovely car my friend, it may be red but its not like the last one you had, honest! Its fundamentals are strong, can drive in both directions for ever without running out of fuel and handles u-turns very well. And you don't want to buy a car off that one over there"

(John McCain, Memphis, Tenessee, October 2008)

"Alwight darling, can you give me back a good a rub its a bit saw from all that duckin and divin I've been doin. And ang on, your the spitting image of my ex-wife pat. Why don't you ed back over to the car-lot with me, I've got a coach you'd feel right at home in called the straight talk express. I'm trying to flog it and get one of them like the 38 to Clapton Pond, I think a bendy bus better suits the way I'm doin things these days"

Frank Butcher (Walford, London October 2008)

Has my brother been credit crunched?

2008-10-07T14:58:00.000-07:00

My poor prudent brother, diligent enough to log on to and take the advice of Moneysavingexpert.com rather than just strole into the nearest bank. Rather than opt for your run-of-the-mill saving account, he shopped around, as we're supposed to do in this age of choice and Internet banking. The top interest rate he could find was IceSave, of Iceland, which, as I have just been told on the 11 o'clock news, went into liquidation today.

We had a conversation about what he should do on Sunday night after hearing about its perilous state on Money Box Live (I show I normally detest due to the rather pious guy who hosts it). As I said to him then, i wonder how money other people around the UK/world were having a similar conversation to us at that time? Probably lots; and how many expected to ever have a conversation like that? Probably none.

But upon reflection if Sweden, which is now one of the most prosperous countries in the world was capable of contriving a similar near-financial-death banking crisis in the 90s why did we feel so immune, given the hyper-borrowing, and hyper-leveraging that has gone on not only in our country but around the globe?

The truth is we were living in mass denial, from those who knew the markets well enough to have been able to identify systemic risk - the financiers; to those who should have known the profound danger in what we were doing but didn't have the capacity to understand it - the politicians; to those that will never be able to factor in, analyse, or comprehend banking risk while still living a normal life - members of the public.

The upshot is John, may or may not have got his money out in time -- got my fingers crossed for you mate -- but the question of how could this happen must be addressed, a great case study in group-think and denial me thinks, and an illustration of how bloody complex our economy has become. And a lesson that if something feels too good to be true, it normally is!

Come off it Gordon, markets don't have morals!

2008-10-06T14:09:00.000-07:00

Gordon Brown's claims made in a speech today that markets must have morals would be hilarious if such a viewpoint wasn't so naive as to be incredibly dangerous.

The feral beasts that inhabit the square mile and other Hobbesian pits of testosterone driven dog-eat-dog have an eye on only one thing; their bonuses.

I am not about to cast vitriolic judgement on how evil these individuals are (I actually think most people in the city are just seeking to do the best thing for them and their families and probably believe that the invisible hand coupled with a bit of trickle-down means that this is also good for society), but the truth is that when you have your head in figures and graphs all day, and your job is to ensure that your firm makes a profit and the social environment is one of intense competition you don't pause for thought about the broader societal and systemic impacts of your decision.

That's the culture that prevails and lets deal with it.

The truth is that there are two forces that govern the impact of the City; cash and coercion.

Cash provides a great incentive for traders to allocate their resources to places where it will see the greatest return, but coercion is required to ensure that the greatest return for the trader coincides with the greatest return in terms of future market and societal prospects..... That means regulation Gordon! We can't hope for some-kind of epiphany of altruism. We have to get a handle of what is happening, what has happened, and what is going to happen and design the regulatory frameworks to deal with it.

Geopolitics: Last month, bad month

2008-09-09T14:51:00.000-07:00

China have Olympics, execute it with military precision (we can presume both literally and figuratively), totally shun the opportunity to use this as a chance to display they have changed, while the whole world makes pathetic school-yard comments behind their back before going over there to place the duplicitous snouts in the human-rights abusing trough.

Russia invade Georgia after Western backed leader makes ill-advised incursion into Soviet (oh, I mean Russian) controlled territory.

Two lessons heavily inter-related lessons:

One the world is totally bereft of leadership at this time - if there would have been any global leadership to speak of we would have addressed the Georgian territorial questions (along with those in Moldova, Azerbaijan, and issues with Ukraine and other neighbours) long ago, preferably in the wake of Kosovan independence, before it got to this phony war stage ---- good on Sarkozy for trying, and good luck.

Two, global norms and moral expectations are probably at there lowest since the end of the cold war. Sovereign incursions are positively de rigour after Iraq, Afghanistan, Somalia, Lebanon etc... and require no proper justification - and of course "the West's" ability to speak about human rights is now massively eroded for obvious reasons.

What do we need LEADERSHIP - easy to write but harder to conjure in this age of diffuse power in global politics.

do we live in a can't do society?

2008-09-09T14:14:00.000-07:00

I phone Ikea at 1730 at the end of a hard work day; am told by a charming woman that the part I need for my bed (which I suspect is worth about 50p) is not sold separetly but that another they do have will do the job; so I eagerly bound up to Neasden, scamper the 15 minute walk from tube to store, oblivious to the north circ at its grotiest best (actually that's not true, and possibly impossible,,,,,,,, its ffffffffffaaarrrrckkinng grotty - and we all ask the same question everytime we go on it,,, and we all know the answer -- the poor and extremely unfortunate)...... so I arrive at the Ikea, am greeted by a nice young man who points me in the direction in which he suspects I may be able to procure my bed piece, am met by another nice young man who knows the aisle and product number of my part off the top his head,, but I get there and its not the same as for my bed, and its not gonna fit,,, so I go to customer services, who send me to the beds section who send me back down again... the upshot being that while they have plenty of my bed in stock they can't go into the box and get the part for me..... but I argue, the lovely girl on the phone said.... to which they reply no receipt no part.... but she said, I said; and they said no,no,no, as if I had just told them i wanted the bed part to be my legislature, senate and judiciary... so against my better judgement i buy a metal part for my wood bed,,, I had to, i couldn't come all this way and go home empty handed.... but to get home at all proved another ball-ache,,,, i get to west hampstead, come through the tube gates to see a sign; the overground's shut, so I turn to the man behind the glass and ask for the "trip" I had just taken on my oyster to be refunded as it had in fact just been rendered a half trip---------------------- guess what, computer said no!,,,, resisting the urge to ram the metal bed part through the glass (yes I really did think about it, and yes do be scared) i returned to the tube to contemplate our can't do society,, and all the places one experiences it (Gyms I have found are rife with it; "can't take membership forms/money/enrole people), but also all the places one doesn't.. I was tempted to think that as we all move around so much more and have such little information about those we employ, sell to, or deal with, we have to have a less flexible system and room for people to use their judgment/initiative (how profoundly depressing for those that are consigned to such Orwellian work stations) .. but how about Tesco/Sainsbury etc... i am always impressed by the warmth of the individuals who work at these places --BUT, these people are trained to be like this, and I presume are empowered enough to want to be nice,... my mind flashed back to my days in Liverpool when the staff in the Kwik Save always saw you as an inconvenience, whereas the Asda staff were always friendly and had a chat... and to my work where one guy will happily give you the rapid response/opinion/advice you want whereas another won't... I guess its culture,,,, but key to that culture must be empowerment, give people responsibility, give them a stake,, energise them,, give them a culture within which to operate ----- set the norms,,, destroy can't doism!

Mood-music says it all for Brussels

2008-07-22T09:51:00.000-07:00

Reading this article in this Sunday's Observer proclaiming that Brussels is the key to Belgiums future I couldn't help thinking if that's the case good luck to the Belgians, they're gonna need it. It was only a week ago that I was last over in Brux, and while I have a lot of old friends there from when I was working the European Parliament, its a place that is quite frankly underwhelming, and distinctly unsure of itself - though i must add incredibly pleasant to live in.

Nowhere sums this up for me better that the Brussels Metro. Try as they might to make the Brussels Metro a great celebration of all things Belgian - stations called Eddie Mercks (with his tour winning bike in it!) and Jacques Brel - it does in fact some up the very essence of Brussels as an entity,,,, but for many of the wrong reasons,, for one, all the passengers just comes across as a bit down-trodden, with dress tatty and/or generic, expressions neutral, and pace of movement tardy - walking up escalators is a rarity.. But for me what sums up Brussels' lowest common denominator status as the capital of a constructed nation is the fact that rather than risk offending either side, the music on the Brussels metro is 100% English.... now I am sure that there is probably not a glut of quality Belgian music for them to choose from, but surely enough to provide a distraction for the army of commuting Commission functionaries, interns, and waffle scoffers as they use the metro service each day... I don't know this for sure but i can speculate with some confidence that this is the result of a policy directly aimed at not offending either side... I am no psychologist but this must be some kind of great corporate denial,,, which les Belges or is that de Belgen,, or shall we just settle for the Flemish and Walloons,, will have to face up to very soon.

Gordy will never be able to communicate with the electorate

2008-07-07T23:50:00.000-07:00

This great post on my friend Alex Finnegan's site prompted me to post an illustration of what a bad communicator Gordon Brown is, and why when he is told by his advisers how to be a good communicator he looks over-coached and clunky. I have said in the past that sometimes Gordon looks like a robot who has had a personality programmed into him and that the computer controlling him has then caught a virus causing him to spout untimely and inappropriate "niceties" and to smile at random intervals. There is no more stark example than this appearance on ABC's Good Morning America during Gordon's ill-timed trip to the states earlier this year. Watch out for the "thank you for the culture".................. oh and how TB would have charmed them!

I <3 i-Player ... health service to rust-belt

2008-07-07T14:20:00.000-07:00

So big deal, the Dunford Daily hasn't turned out to be daily - it's for my enjoyment and self-aggrandisement not yours - so I'll blog as and when I please. The truth is that any time I have had in front of a computer of late has been taken up with on demand TV - whether it be feasting on quality documentaries/Wimbledon highlights on the BBC i-Player or being sucked into the vortex of the next episode of the increasingly hilarious peep show on 4 OD (we started watching about 2 months ago and are about to finish series 4).

As I get older I find that I increasingly get moved to a near tear-jerking state, and even of late beyond that, to the actual crying bit. Typical candidates for inducing such a (near tear jerking) state are individual (though not team) sporting triumphs, especially ones against the odds, examples include Wimbledon finals, and Kelly Holmes' double gold, very rarely films (e.g. Kite Runner- full crying), and sometimes real-life situations (e.g. complicated family stuff -full- and escorting an incredibly old, infirm and lonely women back to her empty flat on the Goswell Rd. last week - near).

To this collection I can now add three more near-tear jerkers: Nadal's win after 4 and a half hours last night (unjustified, naff and irrelevant, i know), and two far more worthy candidates. The first was the personal stories at the end of the wonderful BBC docu on the start of the NHS - I hadn't realised the odds Bevan was up against, and the perseverance required, it really brought home what "conviction politics" should be all about, putting your head on the block for something that will materially change people's lives, chances, self-worth, and the very nature of society and civilisation itself. Perhaps one reason this is all the more galling is that many things that must have been elements of his vision are still undone or have ceased to be "politically viable" - care for the elderly and dental care are the two that spring to mind. The second was a Jim Naughtie radio 4 program on the state of the US, basically documenting the plight of the vulnerable in Detroit, where employment has deteriorated to 1930s levels and many in are in the process of having their homes repossessed as a result of sub-prime lending. The show ends with a 60 odd year old lady who has just lost her job, and sold off most of her furniture in anticipation of being turfed out of her home by bailiffs. She begins to sing in a heart rendering gospel fashion that helps bring some humanity to the Y axis of the Phillips curve.

Doused down and ready to die??

2008-05-04T14:04:00.001-07:00

The slogan that has best embodied the energy, freshness and zeal of the Obama campaign has to be "we're fired up and ready to go".. and this has been played out through previously disengaged foot soldiers making their campaigning debut, hugely successful voter registration drives, and of course the grand slam speaking appearances which have become his hallmark (for better or worse)...

I was hoping, while campaigning in my first London Mayoral election that the love that a lot of people have for Ken would translate into a similar hunger on the streets to really go and win the argument, and stop Boris. But no. Tokenism seemed to rein supreme. Perhaps I just watch to much Apprentice, but you have to take yourself to the market, be approachable, personable, and bloody-well engage people... Not stand there, generally in groups of five or more, and ask people in no more than 5 words whether they would like a (generic and poorly targeted) leaflet.. while the bloody opposition's fresh-faced and Linton Crosbyfied army of enthusiastic barber wearers shove targeted leaflets down the throat of every Standard swallowing sympathiser... That's not to mention life at the poorly manned, understaffed, under enthused, and poorly organised call centre....

So using the Obama campaign as the ideal-type, are we now "doused down and ready to die?" or is there a way to make up for this massive deficit in energy and organisational capacity.. As it has with the Obama campaign it has to come from the top,, there has to be the passion, genuine conviction, and of course the communication skills from the leadership to convince us that they will do all they can to help the most vulnerable in society, and that they will genuinely make bold changes to the country.... then you stop relying on a) the careerist box-ticker, building a back story for a future campaign and b) the ward loyalist/young union employee/activist, who use campaigning as a social opportunity... Then it is up to the rest of us to step up..

But until that time, can we really turn round to our friends and say, put down your pen, stop writing that letter for Amnesty, because I have a better way through which you can be a change maker???

Gordon Brown on polling day: listening and leading... at a random event on Palestine----plenty of key marginals there!

2008-05-04T13:21:00.000-07:00

At 4 o'clock on Thursday it was already glaringly apparent that we were set for a mauling and that London was in the balance. So as I trooped down to the Mayfair Hotel , end even as I passed through the legions of policemen at the door of the conference for potential investors in Palestine, I thought there is no way Gordy will show up... But show up he did.

It seemed like the most appropriate of venues, buried about two floors underground with no outside doors or windows, exactly the kind of place you would want to hide as political Armageddon approached. The guest list however was sadly not quite as handpicked to shield Gordon from political realities.

Even before a word was spoken the contrast was marked. Tony Blair, seems to have discovered the 48 hour day, within which one can work for two major financial institutions, run an ivy league lecture course, a faith foundation, be envoy to Rwanda, solve the middle east conflict (well try at least), exercise twice, and still have enough time to top up his perma-tan and get eight hours sleep........ While Gordy on the other seems to have discovered the 8 hour day, where one doesn't have time to sleep, and only has time to read 50 academic papers, and meddle with 20 departmental press-releases, and certainly doesn't have time to exercise (witness gut).

I don't even have to go into their relative speaking performances...

Comparisons aside, the main point is that Gordy was at this event for 45 mins(at least 5 of which he slept for!) at 5pm on a polling day! As important as the issue of investment in Palestine is, was this event a) of national importance? and b) of political importance to Labour at this time??? Did it generate any news coverage??

Worse still wee Dougie Alexander (1 hour ministerial time) was alongside him making a half hearted effort at chairing the thing (again he suffered by comparison with the eloquent Palestinian PM Salam Fayyad and the charming Benita Ferrero-Waldner).... Who is planning Gordon's diary/strategy/messages?? Sort it out!

Feeling the love at Sky mayoral debate

2008-04-29T13:55:00.000-07:00

At Sky's London mayoral event last night. It was well put on, very effectively reconciling Sky's glitzy/naff presentation, with an old town hall debate feel. But despite claims on the Sky website that "the candidates attacked each other over race" it was all a bit cuddly and nicey nicey, there was not just the expected love shown for Brian (please give me your second preference vote) Paddick, but also seemingly much love between Ken and Boris. This was summed up for me when at the end of the debate Ken couldn't wait to go and put his arm around Boris and josh about someone or something in the crowd....do they genuinely like each other?

The beneficiary of this love-in has to be Johnson, as Ken really didn't capitalise on the serious question marks that hang over how Boris will handle running London Plc... so when we bumped into Ken outside,, the message had to be "go for the jugular!"

Yesterday's Andy Marr,, Cameron riled, DM4PM?... other cabinet members please take note

2008-04-28T04:17:00.000-07:00

Sunday's Andy Marr show (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/programmes/andrew_marr_show/default.stm) was a taster for the next decade of Labour-Tory debates, and if yesterday's form is a sign of things to come,, bring it on! David Milliband was personable, all over the detail, calm, displayed confidence in the government, and scored some good political points without appearing petty; while the leader of her mag's oppo looked like a recruitment consultant shoed in at the last minute for a final interview for a banking CEO job.

First up was DC who looked uncharacteristically harassed and failed to transmit the confident ora expected of a man who has just been given a 64 majority by one of the Sunday papers. He looked rushed, failed to transmit key messages, and again looked simply opportunistic as he (probably quiet rightly) waded into the 10p rate assault on the poor, while failing to present any coherent alternative couched in Tory language which would appeal to the group under assault. Labour must find a way of capitalising on this reoccurring weakness exhibited by both David Cameron and, as was shown in his hotch-botch solution offered at the time of Northern Rock nationalisation, George (super-squirt) Osborne. This weakness aside, it just looked as though someone had got his goat, he performed like a bull thrown into a ring after a prolonged period of ball squeezing (yes it happens, no I don't condone it http://www.friendsofanimals.org/news/2008/january/bullriding-new-york-.html), so who or what, was the proverbial ball-squeezer?

When Miliband came out for his turn in Andy Marr's slightly less than hot seat, and hit DC with an effective, "he's a good salesman jibe", was that the answer? Had DM been bantering DC off camera? I don't know how these green rooms work on these shows, but it just seemed to me to be the perfect explanation for an uncharacteristically riled Cameron performance.

Either way Miliband was so assured and smooth, it did make you think "if only"... Well the truth is he didn't and he isn't, but he did show that even from his current position he can be a great asset for this government.. For the first time in a while we saw a Labour minister look confident in his abilities and those of the government, and not slipping into this over-defensive, under-personable, over coached by press officers crap, that the rest of the cabinet has been feeding the public over recent months (GB: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/7347330.stm and woefully on Good Morning America http://abcnews.go.com/GMA/story?id=4664000&page=1 )

So three valuable lessons, one, ball squeeze off camera; two, Cameron looks like he is not 100% comfortable being in this leading position with no policy to back himself up; three, the rest of the cabinet need to be a bit more like David Milliband; look like you are a) calm b) on top of the detail and c) a fully signed up member of the human race.