Prism: A Catcher in the Spy

The headlines over the past few months have demonstrated to politicians and the public alike that the world of spying has very much evolved. Gone are the days of Harry Lime of The Third Man or a Cold War Le Carré thriller. We now know that whilst spying remains as secret as ever, it is done on an enormous and technologically driven scale.

The exposé in The Guardian over the summer, through the leaking of data by the now exiled American contractor Edward Snowden, demonstrated the amount of secret information absorbed by the National Security Agency (NSA) and Government Communications Headquarters (GCHQ), the US and UK’s respective intelligence agencies. The newspaper revealed how both governments have the capacity and indeed routinely monitored the emails, social messaging and top secret correspondence of foreign governments and individuals.

The ‘Prism’ as it is now known, facilitated these agencies to mine and monitor every single email or online message between any two individuals on the planet. In mainland Europe, governments have been up in arms. The Belgian Government has demanded answers to both the US and UK to whether they spied on its national telecoms company. It is the same with Germany, who also learned that the NSA was snooping on its citizens’ emails and online messaging. France is now pushing for consumer protection regulation in Europe that would alert any individual to potential NSA surveillance. Yet, in Britain, it has been brushed under the carpet. There was indeed coverage of Edward Snowden’s subsequent asylum claims and minimal coverage about the Guardian destroying hard drives demanded back by GCHQ, but beyond that very little more.

Edward Snowden: public enemy number one?

Indeed, this week there were allegations from Westminster questioning whether The Guardian had been irresponsible in exposing national secrets. Conservative MPs, Dr Liam Fox and Julian Smith asked for an investigation into the newspaper’s behaviour, which indeed was subsequently granted by the Prime Minister and will be led by the Home Affairs Select Committee.

So the question is why? Why is there such little outcry? What makes Britain a different case and is The Guardian irresponsible?

The nature of terrorism and evolution of cyber-warfare nowadays, means that government agencies are no longer monitoring huge movements, but a handful of targeted suspects. In their eyes, for the protection of innocent civilians, they need to monitor all their email traffic and other communication channels of those individuals. The question for Britons to answer is whether they feel safer in the knowledge that the Government is tracking potential terrorists who may be looking to repeat similar Nairobi-style attacks on the streets of London or Leeds? Most would no doubt say yes and would find it difficult not to endorse. But if they were asked simply, do you find it acceptable that Government can monitor everything you do and say online? Then they are more than likely say no.

The question is ultimately philosophical, but also cultural. For those in the UK, there are memories of Russian spies, Irish Nationalists and of late Islamic terrorists. The dichotomy between spying and citizen safety is less obvious for Brits because of this past. Yet for the likes of Germany, who lived with a cruel and omniscient secret police, the Gestapo and latterly the Stasi, the liberty of individual is primacy. Indeed, in America, libertarians are just as suspicious of the role of Government. Snowden was by no means of the same mould as Wikileaks founder Julian Assange, a man with a huge distrust of Governments on the left. Snowden is very much libertarian and believed that it was not in the government’s mandate to spy on its citizens. His motives were seen to be in the defence of the individual.

Guardian editor Alan Rusbridger: Hero or villain?

Yet there appears to be no such vocal libertarian political thinking in the UK. More questions are being asked of The Guardian because politicians now feel that their actions have jeopardised the nature of how spy agencies conduct their work. The Guardian has indeed argued otherwise, but as other newspapers have argued the actions of Guardian journalists may have threatened ongoing operations. Have potential threats now disappeared under the radar?

The question in the grand scheme of things, which is difficult to answer, is whether in the loss of liberty we become safer or indeed, the loss of liberty itself is not a price worth paying. There is no right answer, but whilst we may now have an idea of what government can do. Will it make us safer?

Fight Night: will we see a 2015 live political debate?

For any political anorak, General Election night is one of the few occasions when staying up all night is a must. The exit polls, the swing-o-meter and the live interviews from the count all make for an entertaining night and early morning’s viewing. 2010 was no different and the campaign stands out for two particularly moments. Firstly, Gordon Brown’s cringing faux pas where he labelled off-camera and what he thought was off-mic, a life-long Labour supporter called Gillian Duffy ‘a bigoted woman’. Moments like this occur on every campaign trail, but what was most memorable this time around and completely untested was the live electoral debates.

On three separate occasions, Brown, Cameron and Clegg all duelled in live debates about matters that would sway how the British public would vote. Other Western democracies are used such set-ups, most notably in America, and despite frequent appearances on the likes of the Today programme or The Marr Show, such an event had never been held on British screens. In the context of UK politics, it was a chance for all three parties to gain. Gordon Brown felt that despite Labour’s lacklustre poll rating and the economic backdrop, he had nothing to lose, as well as his utterance that this was ‘no time for a novice’. David Cameron, his closest rival, buoyed by his polling had an opportunity to demonstrate the rebranding of his Conservatism. The dynamics of Britain’s three party system also gave a chance to a widely unknown Liberal Democrat leader Nick Clegg.

The 2010 debate

And it was Clegg who stole the show. The entire nation ‘agreed with Nick’ and as a consequence, Britain’s third party took 56 seats, down from the 2005 count, but substantial enough to see Britain’s first ‘hung’ Parliament since 1974. For most electoral strategists, there are many reasons to question why the Conservatives did not win an outright majority, but the ‘Clegg-factor’ was substantial enough to sway the ballot towards no overall control. The following five days in May saw the Conservatives and Liberal Democrats to join together to form today’s Coalition Government.

To this date, and a General Election less than two years away, there is no agreement in place to whether we will see similar debates in 2015. And even despite Clegg’s performance last time, the question will be whether all three parties would want it to take place. The viewing figures from 2010 were around 10 million. That’s unheard of for political programming and simply cranks up the pressure on all party leaders, but if it has been done before and worked, why would the broadcasters not want to do it again?

And for the leaders, would they really want it to go ahead?

For the Lib Dems and Nick Clegg, history may well hold them hostage. The party remains bullish about its record in government and its ability to hang onto its seats. The Eastleigh by-election demonstrated their ability to win whilst in Government and the party grassroots will be as combative as ever. Yet Mr Clegg is no longer the outsider to the British public and they may well remember his paper promises come the vote next time, even if he puts in a strong broadcast performance. A debate may simply be part of a long drawn out annihilation.

For the Tories, David Cameron has yet to say on-record that he is willing to take part in similar debates, but it is more than likely that political pressure would force him to do so. Many would argue that Cameron remains the party’s biggest asset and that on all occasions when he has been put on the spot, most notably over Europe; he has triumphed and shown his statesman-like qualities. Yet others are quick to blame his 2010 performance for the party’s inability to win the previous vote outright. The continuing rebellion among backbenchers and the irresistable rise of Boris Johnson may put the pressure on Cameron on further. History shows that most leaders do not go onto better their previous vote, for many within the party; it may be another reason why they see it fit to unseat Mr Cameron’s leadership.

And what about Ed Miliband? The leader that to some extent remains an unknown quantity to the British public.  Would a ‘one-nation’ Labour transcend in a live leadership debate? Would voters warm to a Mr Miliband whose performances have become stronger since his rise to party leader in 2010? Or would they be turned off by his personality? His awkwardness and most notably, his political legacy in the Brown Government? Neither he nor Ed Balls have said that Labour overspent in the time in Government, despite Britain having the biggest deficit in the G8. Could a strong message and performance from Cameron and Clegg simply vanquish all rebranding attempts made by Labour?

Is it democratically unfair to ignore the likes of Farage and Salmond?

And what of UKIP or the SNP? Nigel Farage could well see his party storm to success in the 2014 the European elections. Despite no representation in the Commons, would it be unfair to exclude him from some or all of the debates? Or would exclusion only benefit him further and his party’s message? The same could be said of Alex Salmond. Why should the Conservatives, who only have one MP in Scotland, be given such preferential treatment on national broadcast? Who is not to say that the Independence debate in September 2014 could enhance the voice of the SNP in Westminster? Would it be unfair then?

There are many legal and broadcasting caveats to take into consideration, as well as the overriding political risks, but it seems implausible to go into 2015, without the prospect of a live leadership debate. As I outlined above, there are extra considerations to be had, but in what will develop into a crucial vote, the question is, who will we agree with this time?

The Arab Spring is dead. Long live Assad?

Freedom was their cry and freedom is what they demanded. Nation upon nation saw regimes fall across the Arab world as dynastic dictators left following a surging rally for democracy. Sweeping across North Africa and the Middle East, tyrants fell both peacefully and bloodily. Hosni Mubarak’s thirty-year reign fell following a long stand-off with young and old Egyptians, whilst Colonel Gadaffi’s 42-year-old rule ended bloodily after an intervention by NATO in Libya’s short, yet bitter civil war. The tide of democracy appeared to emerging across nations that for so long had suffered hardship and poverty. Young and educated Arabs wanted to be part of fledgling democracies with real futures. Not trapped in nations where human rights, basic amenities and jobs are hard to come by. Surely the next to fall would be the House of Assad?

Two years have passed since the Syrian uprising began and what has fast developed into the region’s bloodiest civil war. The death toll is estimated to be around 70,000. More than half a million refugees have escaped into neighbouring Jordan. More worryingly, following the alleged use of chemical weapons by the Syrian regime, President Assad appears to show no intent in relenting. The West appears hapless in deciding whether intervention would not only work, but whether it is desirable.

The city of Homs.

The problem for the West remains political, moral and straightforward realism. Politically, the inability for likely intervening nations like the US and UK have been blocked in the UN by Syria’s long term allies China and most notably Russia. The Chinese feel uncomfortable condoning any external upheaval when they have their own dissidents within Tibet and Xinjiang province, any support may simply lead to calls for greater autonomy within its own borders. Russia, on the other hand, has felt the full force of international criticism and indignation of supporting a murderous regime. Yet for Russia, it is far more complicated. Not only, like China, have they had difficulties with its own ethnic groups, most noticeably in the Caucuses, but more fundamentally, Syria has been one of the staunchest and longest serving allies in the region. As a client of Russian military hardware, as well as providing a Mediterranean port for the Russian fleet, why would President Putin feel obliged to cave into Western demands when it would seriously lose out?

Morally, the problem remains more painful. When I last wrote about Syria, the estimation of deaths was around 25,000 mark. Humanitarian reports remain bleak. Women and children are destitute. President Assad remains intent on powering through what he believes to be external forces intruding in Syria’s internal affairs. Two years into the war and it now appears that Assad is not looking for an escape route. If half a million or more die, it is cost he is willing to face. There the problem lies for the West. Within eight months, the death toll has almost quadrupled. It has already dithered since the fighting began and now it finds itself with a growing casualty list and a more radical Islamic opponent. With evidence of chemical weapons now emerging – the so-called red line before intervention, ordinary Syrians killed in the crossfire and the possibility of a less amenable successor to Bashar Al-Assad. They have seen that post-Gadaffi; Libya is dealing with external enemies both within and outside its borders in Mali and Algeria, most notably Al-Qaeda. An intervention in Syria may simply lead to a full-scale war across the whole Middle East.

Bashar al-Assad: Defiant

Finally, the straightforward realism is thus: if the rebels cannot be trusted and America has no real appetite to intervene then what is likely to happen to Syria? The two most important questions are whether Russia is willing to commit its support both diplomatically and militarily. If an intervention appears unlikely then, Vladimir Putin will simply continue with its support. Secondly, how far is Israel willing to sit on the sidelines? Only this weekend there were reports of attacks by the Israeli Defence Force within Syria following suggestions that Hezbollah had obtained chemical weapons. With the conflict on its doorstep and Al Qaeda operating freely within some of its towns and cities, it is hard to foresee the Israeli military standing down.

Politicians and diplomats are fully aware of the risks of non-intervention. The memory of Srebrenica and Rwanda remain particularly vivid within the UN and NATO. Yet, perhaps the time has passed for intervention. The Arab Spring is dead. As it stands, who knows what will happen.

Michael Owen: Good, but never great

Michael Owen, perhaps one of England’s greatest ever strikers announced his retirement this week. The Stoke City striker decided that at the age of 33, it was time for him to ‘hang up his boots’ at the end of this season. Owen, whose record will show 40 goals in 89 caps, as well as numerous titles including an FA Cup, two league cup trophies, a Premier League winner’s medal, a UEFA Cup winner’s medal as well as winning the 2001 Ballon D’Or; the last Englishman to do so.

Yet, whilst the trophy cabinet and his goals count may lie favourably, it is unlikely and perhaps unfairly to some, that history will suggest Owen was a great.

As a precocious teenager at Liverpool, he made his name with his stunning speed and his ability to simply pull away from the side of the last defender. Liverpool, a club that has welcomed and glorified many fine strikers including Ian St John, John Aldridge, Ian Rush and Robbie Fowler, saw Owen as another player of that same quality. His record of 158 goals in 297 appearances demonstrated his ruthlessness and the terror that opposition teams felt when dealing with the young Englishman.

For his country, Owen will be remembered for many moments, his goal in the 2002 quarter-final against Brazil, his hat-trick against Germany in Munich and of course; his wonderful goal against Argentina in 1998 that announced his arrival to a global audience.

Dancing past Argentinians in the 1998 World Cup in St Etienne.

Owen had everything, yet he just never lived up to what we believed he would end up being.

It is true that injury curtailed what once destroyed Premiership and international defences. Owen’s speed was debilitated by serious hamstring injuries, so much so that Owen once said on record that he effectively played with two in his right leg. Later on in his career, he snapped his cruciate ligament during the 2006 World Cup, as well as persistent ankle injuries in the latter stages.

To some extent Owen never recovered, his goal scoring record was still relatively strong, but the player that he evolved into simply never adapted to the changing game.

Pure and simple, Owen’s talent as a youngster was running onto through balls and being able to ease past defenders. His ability to finish in front of goal, never declined; alas his ability to get to that stage was a vestige of the past. It was injuries that forced Owen to adapt his game and the stockier player was not in the bracket of player that won the European footballer of the year award at the beginning of the millennium.

Owen, who had made his living from scoring in a certain way, and had Liverpool built around him to provide those goals, never had the tactical capacity to develop into something that would allow him to flourish. When Rafa Benitez joined Liverpool and asked him to make runs across the defenders, which Owen wasn’t capable of doing, a move to Madrid for Benitez allowed Liverpool to play a different way and freed up Steven Gerrard.

Owen scored goals at his time in Madrid and subsequently Newcastle. Yet, at United and currently, Stoke, goals have not been as forthcoming due to both opportunities and unfortunately injuries. However; even so, when one compares the strikers in the Premier League at the time then it shows how much his worth had diminished. The likes of Drogba, Rooney and Berbatov, though never had the finishing ability of Owen, were simply in a different technical and tactical league to Owen. When Rooney cruelly broke his metatarsal against Portugal in the quarter finals of Euro 2004, it was Frank Lampard and Steven Gerrard that England relied on, not Michael Owen.

As I conclude, it feels almost harsh to suggest that Owen was not the player his goal record proves. He scored goals and his was greatly admired, but never loved. Yes, he was clinical, but perhaps too corporate. He did not mean as much as Robbie Fowler to the Kop and left St James’ Park maligned. Manchester United fans will remember his injury time winner against City, but beyond that, no more.

The headlines this weekend suggest that Owen has not ruled out going into management or coaching. Whilst it would be irrational to turn down someone with his experience and leadership qualities, I find it difficult to believe that Owen’s tactical ability could prove successful at the highest level.

It is difficult because I feel that injury unfairly dealt Owen an ability to move on his career; however he was unable to adapt unlike a Giggs, a Ferdinand or even a Dwight Yorke. He was more than a precocious youngster and made many England fans happy as he sped away from Robert Ayala or put the ball past Oliver Kahn with ease, he unfortunately flourished for not long enough. Owen could’ve gone down as a great, but sadly he will never will do. 

Bankers' bonuses: Bad policy

Defend a banker anyone? Shall we forget the misdemeanours of the past few years and let them get on with it as they did previously? Was mis-selling, rate-fixing and wholesale impunity just a minor aberration?

Perhaps I am being flippant, but really is it time to move on with how we treat our financial services sector?

There is anger and deserved contempt for the profession, and to some extent, deservedly so. The actions of several banks, both retail and investment, brought the global economy to its knees in 2008. Many of the banks were over-leveraged with billions of pounds worth of sub-prime and toxic assets on their balance sheets. At the same time, whilst a huge bubble was growing in the US housing market, bright minds were being recruited by the world’s biggest financial institutions and being remunerated with six-figure salaries and generous bonuses. Yet, this was not a revolution in creating wealth. It was entirely artificial and five years later, we the aftermath is still affecting the economy.

Small and medium sized enterprises are suffocating from a lack of credit within the system. Banks are being asked to meet lending targets, yet at the same time having to slim-line their balance sheet and maintain a higher capital ratio too. In 2008, banks weren’t able to function as banks because they lacked liquidity, now they are unable to lend because they need to hold on to their money.

This is where the problem lies; mainly in culture and language. Banks are perceived to conduits of free-market capitalism, unregulated machines that stuff money into the pockets of the rich. This is a ridiculous argument, yet it is frequently echoed by lazy politicians and journalists. The financial services industry contributes more than ten percent of the UK’s national GDP and employs well over a million people. Even after the crash.

Whilst regulation may be required, it is important to stress that more regulation is not the answer, simply good regulation.

EU regulation is an attack on the UK

The EU’s decision to introduce a Financial Transaction Tax as well as a cap on bankers’ bonuses is exactly not that: it is bad regulation. Whilst the City of London, the UK’s financial heart, has remained staunchly pro-EU, it has remained silent over these proposals. Make no mistake, when these were put forward, EU politicians were simply testing the water to see how keen people were for such measures, more will follow. This is simply an attack on Britain’s financial heart and the fact that the UK was the only country to oppose the measure for capping bonuses demonstrate that we are simply on our own.

It is also another example of the undemocratic nature of the EU. 26 nations, unelected by the British people, are forcing regulations on us that we simply did not vote for. This is before we question whether it will work or not. A similar financial tax introduced in Sweden in the 1980s simply forced all Swedish bond traders to move to London overnight. Who is not to say that the same will happen again this time? People argue that people would be unwilling to move away from London and the huge markets it serves, but why would an industry want to remain somewhere when the regulation is simply punishing and burdensome?

Bankers’ bonuses will drive up salaries, which are far more difficult to claw back than bonuses. In the event of another crisis, it will simply entail banks firing more people than addressing remuneration. In effect, they will be more unstable. Let’s not forget that banks are simply too clever, if there is a way of getting around it, they will do. People always tend to forget that these costs ultimately will be passed on to consumers i.e. you and I.

This is simply a bad policy.

What is most important that a British politician recognises this. For too long there has been no political capital in defending bankers. If this does become UK law, then MPs should realise that this is bad politics and not only will it cost growth, but cost jobs too. If a referendum does eventually happen, then people may realise that unnecessary rules and regulations from Europe are having a detrimental effect on the UK economy. The only way to avoid it, may be leaving.

Mourning Zimbabwe: the black armband protest

Sport is not what it used to be. It still excites and incites the passion of the everyday fan, but it no longer represents the Corinthian spirit. Amateurism died a long time ago. And whilst athletes are becoming quicker, stronger and faster, they are also becoming far wealthier. Athletes have short careers and are more than entitled to make their money in this time; but the role of the corporation is changing the way athletes behave.

Long gone are the 1970s when athletes were given an extra few pounds to wear a pair of Adidas trainers. Athletes are now the stars and ambassadors for multinationals brands. What they do and how they do it makes us want to be like them, and of course, more importantly, what they wear only helps them further. However, the burden of corporate sponsorship does not allow for controversy. Multinationals are like any other company and do not like reputational issues. Nike no longer wants to be associated with Lance Armstrong or Oscar Pistorious; and for obvious reasons. Football club boardrooms seat directors of communications. Huge marketing and PR arms are in place to ensure nothing taints the brand. To some extent, boring is good.

Politics is reflected in this. At his peak in the early 1990s, Michael Jordan was seen to be a model for all Democrat voters. Yet, the canny Chicago Bulls guard simply replied to any questions about politics that “Republicans buy sneakers too.” Political statements, for the sake of corporate sponsorship, are now rarer and to some extent, not worth the trouble.

The most famous political statement of all was the ‘black power’ salute of Mexico 1968. In front of a global audience, Tommie Smith and John Carlos gave a fisted salute whilst accepting their Olympic medals. The protest was not a black power as initially perceived, but an attempt to highlight the struggle for equality for black Americans. Symbolic for sport both now and in 1968, the salute did nothing further than tarnish the two athletes’ careers from that day onward.

It is hard to believe, but it is now ten years ago, since the 2003 Cricket World Cup, where two brave Zimbabwean cricketers made a political gesture that would change their lives forever. Captain Andy Flower and Henry Olonga, the country’s first black international, both wore black armbands during the opening game of the competition to highlight what they saw as “mourning the death of democracy in Zimbabwe”.

Both men released a prepared press statement ahead of the side's first match.

The gesture appears small, but its symbolism was enormous. Robert Mugabe, the man who had led the country to independence in 1980, had slowly and stealthily increased his grip on the running of the nation. Although people often portray Mugabe’s clampdown on opposition from the start of the millennium as to when he became paranoid, the wily old tyrant had been locking up and murdering political opponents since he rose to power. It was not until the country overwhelmingly defeated a referendum that would have enshrined Mugabe as Zimbabwe’s perpetual leader that he decided to turn on the country’s white and wealthy minority.

The expropriation of white farm land was certainly accepted as a hangover from Zimbabwe’s colonial past. The majority of white people were actually in favour of a redress, yet Mugabe’s henchmen set about the land grab vengeful and violently. Although seen by the Western media as a racist attack, it neglected to highlight the black opposition to Mugabe. White farmers, in most instances, had the means to move to other parts of the world. The black labourers simply did not.

For Flower and Olonga, this was not a protest drawn on racial lines. Flower saw that instances of political violence were being suppressed by the secret police. The tactics used by Mugabe were simply destroying the fabric of Zimbabwean society. The fact that only two men wore armbands, one black and one white, showed that Mugabe was dividing a nation, not just one race.

Both men then went out and played the match as if nothing happened. The only stark difference being a visible, yet indelible, piece of black tape around their arms that sent a simple, but clear message. It was a gesture, yet one that both men knew would have consequences.

As Zimbabwe exited the tournament, both men left the continent as death threats were issued, both heading for the UK. Flower joining Essex on the county cricket circuit, whereas Olonga was forced into hiding following a charge of treason by the Zimbabwean Government. Even ten years on, both men have yet to set foot into the country since.

Mugabe

Even despite the protest, worse was to come for Zimbabwe: manipulation of elections, political oppression and a destroyed economy. For millions of Zimbabweans, remaining in the country was a choice between life and death. Like the country’s economy, the national cricket team followed the same path, imploding as politics began to interfere with team selection. In 2004, the once proud and effective Zimbabwean cricket team withdrew from the ICC.

Since the decade has passed, both men have continued with their careers. Flower as the head coach of the English cricket team, whereas Olonga has become a public speaker and opera singer.

Flower and Olonga were not particularly close and to this day, they only speak on occasion. Yet at a time when they saw what was happening to their friends, family and fellow countrymen, they recognised that they had an opportunity to show what was happening from within the borders. It was not a publicity stunt, nor a cry for help; it was for them about the right thing. Only with hindsight did they understand that it would change their lives forever.

To this day, Mugabe may be creaking, but his grip on power remains strong. As elections approach in the months to come, it is too early to guess whether change may emerge. For Flower and Olonga, both exceptional cricketers, perhaps one day they will be able to return to a Zimbabwe they loved. Until then, their gesture will remain symbolic.

Leveson: The road to perdition

For those following the machinations on regulating the UK media, the story has moved beyond what we could have once called a saga. Almost three months since Lord Justice Brian Leveson delivered his report into the culture, practices and ethics of the press, the Conservative Party (note, not the Coalition Government), led by Culture Secretary Maria Miller, announced in Parliament its intended reforms of the industry.

Leveson’s report, backed by both the Labour and the Liberal Democrats, as well as the campaign group Hacked Off, called for a statutory body, regulated by Ofcom, to oversee the running of the UK newspaper industry. For them, the Press Complaints Commission (PCC), the existing self-regulating body has only demonstrated that it does not have the capability to govern Britain’s fourth estate. Not only did several notable titles including the Daily Express and Daily Star opt-out, but it oversaw some examples of extreme impunity and criminality by some of Britain’s leading tabloids, most notably the phone-hacking of the murdered teenager Milly Dowler.

Maria Miller

The Conservatives however; felt that a regulatory body was a step too far. In the Commons debate that ensued after Leveson’s deliverance, David Cameron echoed many of the feelings within the press industry that a regulated press in the UK, despite the instances of gross misconduct, is a step in the wrong direction. Their announcement this week proposing a Royal Charter, that would back a regulator; thus not directly affected by government policy was viewed differently from both sides. National editors such of Lionel Barber of the Financial Times argued against this legislation believing that organisations  governed by Royal Charters, such as the BBC are affected by party politics, whilst the Labour Party says it does not go far enough. To all extensive purposes, the Tories proposal could be defined as Leveson-lite, it adopts most of what the report put forward, minus a body that is underpinned by Parliament.

Whilst 75% of the public may agree that the press needs to be shackled, there are two things that I feel completely contravene the current debate. Firstly; that Leveson could be brought on to the statute via the backdoor through the defamation bill. Rather than a separate bill and debate going through Parliament, the reality is that Leveson’s idea of a media arbitration tribunal, underpinned by the statute, could simply added onto the defamation law. Whilst many in the press have argued about the encroaching privacy laws from Europe over the past decade, this decision would really undermine what the whole argument has been about.

Secondly, and what I feel to be more important is what the whole purpose of the legislation is there to demonstrate. Only this week, the London Evening Standard and Independent newspaper announced they would be merging sport and business desks in an attempt to save money. The Independent also announced that it would be become a seven-day operation. To some extent, this is not surprising; moving back of house operations together makes sense in this climate. It is already done by the Telegraph, both The Sun and The Mirror have become seven-day operations in recent years. Whilst continuing to be editorially independent both in content and style, newspapers are adapting to the financial climates of the digital world. Yet the argument is thus; why is the Government looking to regulate an industry that is dying?

The Daily Sketch closed in 1971, when will the next follow?

The Independent has made £80m of losses over the past four years. The Times is reported to make a loss of £40m a year, whilst the Guardian and Observer were around £44 million in the red last year. By 2020, it is conceivable in the current market that the Independent, Express, Mirror, Guardian, Financial Times and even The Sun may no longer exist. The UK has such a flourishing and even despite the recent political hostilities, a wide-ranging press and newspaper industry. Yes, something needs to be addressed, but regulation of this kind, is simply going to kill it.

Davos: A letter to America

For most onlookers the World Economic Forum in Davos appears to be nothing more than a get together for the financial elite at Europe’s most expensive ski resort. Every year, bankers and hedge fund managers to world leaders and economists all converge on this small Swiss outpost.

And whilst it may bring an opportunity for newspapers and sketch writers to poke fun at the size of the bar bills or British Prime Minister David Cameron making a speech on tax avoidance in Switzerland of all places, it does not detract from the important debate surrounding the global economy.

The past few years could not be described in any words other than disastrous, both for the growth and reputation, but what was noticeable from the commentary was the idea that we may now be beyond the worst.

This notion may be seen as intangible and outright outrageous to families living through year-on-year pay freezes and government cuts. Yet, even in the Euro zone, where unemployment remains high and economic growth for powerhouse Germany is negligible, delegates now believe that the structural reforms over the past 18 months have given greater stability to both the markets and the Euro as a currency. Critics may continue to point to the overhanging issues of bank recapitalisation, unsustainable level s of government debt and competitiveness, but even so, the financial milieu gave a cautious understanding that Europe is now showing slow signs of progress from where it was in 2011.

Perhaps, most significantly, however, was not talk of China’s economy slowing down but the growing optimism of the US economy.

The past few years have been one of uncertainty politically and economically. The onset of American decline or relative decline has been much spoken and written about. America’s retreat from certain areas of foreign policy, the rise of the BRIC countries and President Obama’s rhetoric of relativism towards the notion of American ‘exceptionalism’.

The exhaustive Presidential campaign and an inability in Congress to negotiate a debt deal have seen many people foretell a bleak future. America’s huge federal and state debts, the complicated tax system and ability to collect revenue, plus a sliding education system have only pointed to regression.

However; the delegates of Davos all have looked beyond that and have pointed to the energy revolution that may well transform the American economy. The shale gas revolution could lead America to become energy independent by 2035 as well as creating 1.5 million jobs by 2015. Last week’s figures of growing unemployment and a slip in the economy may have been troubling for some analysts; however these were inevitable following the aftermath of the fiscal cliff negotiations.

Could his re-election leave Obama undeterred for reform? (Guardian)

In fact, America, despite the first economic contraction in three and a half years, is well placed to see new growth. As well as its energy revolution, geographically it sits between energy rich Canada and economically dynamic and investor friendly Mexico. Consumer spending is recovering after the past few years, house prices are rising and perhaps most significantly, a point echoed by investor Warren Buffett, is that US banks are in good health. Since the 2008 crisis, they have managed to rebuild their capital, payback bailouts and reduce their risks. This is in stark contrast to many of Europe’s banks which remain dangerously unstable.

Not forgetting the buoyant stock market and America’s cash rich companies. If confidence can be sustained, then who’s not to say they will start spending too and investing in more jobs and projects.

There are medium term issues that Washington will urgently need to look at, particularly the provision of healthcare and the enormous strain it places on both the federal and state budgets. As well as unreported issues like student debt. Washington can no longer seriously continue to proverbially kick the can down the road. America is well placed, but investors and bond holders will continue to remain cautious until America finally starts to deal with its debt.

The most encouraging aspect is that both President Obama and crucially, members of the Republican Party are willing to thrash something out, and not just for the short term.

A second term for Obama and the unburdening of electoral politics may finally allow the President to place some substantive reforms on the table and see America move the world economy. For Davos, it was the first time in several years that the perils of the Euro zone and the fiscal cliff could tentatively be put to one side. Tentatively being the important clause.

They’ll be hoping that next year the only bubbles are from the champagne.