Category: Richard Bolton

Selling Off the Family Silver

2/22/2017

Unilever headquarters in Hamburg, Germany // Ph: Herr Herrner/ Flickr

This week American giant Kraft-Heinz abandoned its £115bn takeover bid for Unilever. Today, we look at the longer term impacts for the UK economy in selling off our assets to service debts and the implications for a Brexiteering Britain on the High Seas

Richard Bolton
Chief Writer

Brexit was the trigger for an overdue day of reckoning needed to address the current account deficit on the Balance of Payments. Deficits compounded and interest mounting up the national debt, seemingly serviceable with foreign acquisitions of our public and private companies. This article seeks to set out how 2017 is shaping up to be in the wake of this week’s collapsed acquisition by US Kraft-Heinz over British-Dutch owned Unilever and the implications for a Britain on the High Seas.

Which is which? Current vs. Capital vs. Financial Accounts
The Current Account consists of three composites: Balance of Payments (Imports-Exports), Net Transfers from abroad (Remittances by immigrants, international development spending), and Net Investment Income as the difference between UK overseas investment income and foreign investments profits leaving the UK.
In 2014, the UK’s Current Account deficit was running at a record 5.5 per cent, the greatest we have seen since 1948. Current account deficits do not tend to matter until such a time as investors decide they do for advanced economies like the UK.

Had the Brexit campaign not won and the pound instead shot up to $1.70 on the FX markets instead of plummeting, negative inflation would have loomed imminent. Imports dwarfing the export values would have intensified the imbalance, compelling the UK to source financing or credit from elsewhere to service these debts. An issue compounded by the “open-policy” UK adopting an open bidding process for foreign owned entities to buy our biggest and best companies at will.

The question remains. In 2017, what will happen when we run out of companies to sell abroad on the Capital and Financial Account to meet the negative Balance of Payments?

The Capital Account includes ownership transfers, patents and copyrights with regard to mergers and acquisitions. The UK running a large deficit in this component signals an economy consuming domestically and not paying its way in the world. Problems begin to surface when the surplus or deficit for the Capital Account is large and persistent as with the UK.

The Financial Account, composed of Foreign Direct Investment, Government-owned assets and global monetary flows encompassing Net Investment Positions, since the 1980s for Britain has been positive investment yields offsetting that of the return to abroad from foreign investments in the UK, enabling a supplementing of the Current Account deficit. Since 2011 this has not happened. The net positive position has turned negative. Henceforth, the record deficit is not driven by poor exporting performance or reliance on imported goods.

The question remains. In 2017, what will happen when we run out of companies to sell abroad on the Capital and Financial Account to meet the negative Balance of Payments?

Why has this swing emerged?
One plausible explanation views the UK as a victim of its own success. Better domestic performance relative to the Eurozone since 2011 has improved foreign repatriated profits and dampened UK profits on the continent. Another proposal is the notion that British banks have been retracting and consolidating from their overexposure in the world since 2008 bailouts. Thirdly, nuances in the figure manipulation or data should be considered, such as UK homes sold to foreign buyers not featuring. In particular, the Chinese fleeing their country for fear of the state appropriating their wealth at the drop of a hat, whereas, a car made in the UK and sold abroad will end up in the statistics. Lastly, the changing perspective from international investors has been to steadily downgrade the reliability of the Sterling, even before Brexit came onto the agenda.

Is a Current Account Deficit financeable?
So long as the Current Account deficit can be matched by positive Capital or Financial Account equivalents, the deficit is financeable. Whether this position is achieved by selling off assets, privatising industries such as the NHS, or so long as foreigners are prepared to keep stumping up cash to the UK in gilts and Foreign Direct Investment, our heads will stay above water.

The UK has long been acknowledged as a safe haven in an otherwise troubled and turbulent world. However, the large and persistent trend could not run unchecked indefinitely. Just as consumers will eventually run out of money if they continue spending all their monthly stipends and maxing out their credit cards. Eventually, something’s gotta give.

Brexit marked a turning point for Britain, compounding the downward trend of the Sterling currency with a realised free fall. Depreciation may in the short run curb import fixation dependency, so bringing the Balance of Payments back under control. The costs of doing so will likely lead to a lower standard of living for citizens as real wages are eroded by the new imported inflation. Petrol prices are already starting to climb back up, in spite of US shale expansions further suppressing OPEC’s unified capacity to place limits on exports.

The UK has an interesting position when it comes to goods and services. On the one hand, price competitiveness has returned with 10-20% declines in currency pairings. Exports that compete on price have seen gains in orders and yet much of what we export is in the tertiary and quaternary industries. High-end specific goods and services which require expertise and sophisticated machinery or software are likely to reside at the price inelastic end of the spectrum.

Thus far, the very existence of the Current Account deficit speaks of the underlying imbalances to be found in the domestic economy. Teresa May may have won the vote of confidence to take the helm, yet the scope of her task to redress the sectoral imbalance and usher the UK into a more sustainable growth path has only just begun.

Troubles permeate in plain sight as our positive earning capacity is sold abroad. Domestic assets stripped and sold out on the Capital and Financial Accounts, such as privatisation of the NHS, Nuclear energy provision to China and France, Steel and Cars to India, and just this week the close shave with American based Kraft-Heinz openly targeting British and Dutch Unilever. Depleted inflows once these companies have been sold off need to be made up elsewhere in order to balance the Current Account’s deficit.

Why Kraft-Heinz failed to win over Unilever
Teresa May needs to appreciate the characteristic predatory private equity moves do not usually succumb to meek pressure at their eleventh hour as British and Dutch Politicians have heaped pressure on the Unilever board.

The proposed takeover ran to the tune of £115 Billion, financed mostly through leverage by Warren Buffett and Brazilian conglomerate 3G. The deal failed after public announcements had been made. The board of Unilever openly rejected an 18 per cent premium, deeming it too paltry. Supplementary features which hampered the takeover were concerns backed by British and Dutch politicians as to the asset stripping deals or the ‘3G style technique’ of loading acquisitions with debt and reducing taxable earnings. Unilever’s board was unprepared to give up 100 years of reliable history and trustworthy business practice for an uncertain ride with the multinational financiers not beholden to any particular state or legislation.

A Kraft-Heinz stall in the US // Ph: Kurt Haubrich/ Flickr

Theresa May in Malta earlier this month // Ph: Number 10/ Flickr

A successful Brexit strategy, undermined
Instead, the proposals made this week calls for ‘public interest tests for mega bids’. The question posed to Teresa May, our media-presented ‘gormless’ leader, asks how she intends to rebalance the UK’s economy while selling off our best companies without question? Successful industrial and business strategies need high functioning companies driving growth, creating products the consumer wants.
Unfortunately, the bidders have little regard for workers.

"Opportunists" would be a more appropriate term for the unashamed plans to carve up lost making departments, cut costs and reduce jobs. Take the noble Sir Phillip Green, owner of Arcadia group, embroiled in the ‘pensions scandal’ with British Homes Stores – a company acquired by maximal leverage with minimal accountability from a cushy yacht in Monaco. 2017 is proving to be yet another bumper year for the opportunist global financier, eager in appetite for debt and little interest in long-term investment.

Take the 2014 acquisition move by Pfizer to purchase AstraZeneca. Pharmaceutical research, patents and new medicines are one of the pillars of modern Britain, so understandably were repealed by the powers that be. However, the same may not be said for Kraft-Heinz’s vision wherein Cadbury’s Dairy Milk chocolate ingredient change was a shame for the consumer and a costly dent on their profit line. Unilever’s relative importance to the British economy with its soap suds, margarines and ice creams are not exactly the heralded trophies that Pharmaceuticals, high fashion, aeronautical engineering or consulting are proving to be in the twenty-first century. So, do we desert them in order to finance ‘rampant consumerism’ and the amortisation of our National Debt?

2017 is proving to be yet another bumper year for the opportunist global financier, eager in appetite for debt and little interest in long-term investment.

UK’s open for business: discounts while they last
The motive behind the takeover bid resides in the UK being the easiest major economy in which to do so. “Open-doors” may hold some benefits in raising competitiveness. Upper management perpetually aware of takeovers dangle upside down over piranha infested waters. Politicians avoid the pitfall cherry picking of AstraZeneca’s over Unilever’s, retaining some on home turf and sacrifice others.

The quandary remains that Unilever is a successful conglomerate with a share price having doubled since 2010 that pays out reliable dividends in an otherwise volatile equities marketplace. The US based Kraft-Heinz wants to do away with Unilever’s corporate responsibility policy, slim up the employee counts, mechanise more processes and induce more bonus related schemes to increase productivity and competitiveness. And surprise, surprise, profit is the end to which any means are justified.

Alternatives?
Sustainable Capitalism seems to draw trappings of outside accountability. Unilever is prepared to listen to its company policy and has succumbed, whereas we made be hard pressed to imagine such a scenario under an American ownership. As track records have shown, heavy job losses, outsourcing and greater financial leverage abound with private equity moves. Living under these global leeches bleeding our system dry, it only seems reasonable for the nation state or international regulatory boards to examine and scrutinise takeover plans in great depth so as to align the interests more snugly with the public interest.

Interventions may be rare in practice, however, the soft line approach May endorsed as she came into office discredits calls for automatic rights to block deals have since been abandoned. January’s green paper on industrial strategy omits takeover policy, as if too troublesome to broad brush in addressing, but instead on a case by case agenda. The next bid in the works will likely grossly exceed £115 Billion for Unilever, negotiations dragging out and voters who lose out to the corporate capital flows will want to know why Teresa May failed to avail those powers she extolled herself in assuming office.

Where it will end, no one knows, but for now 2017 is sizing up to be another year of M&A which the markets will likely play up, as Barry Ritholtz would say, “to applaud major mergers, even though the vast majority of them don’t work out and don’t increase shareholder value”. TMM

0 Comments

The state of British values

1/21/2017

0 Comments

A black cab drives through London in the 1980s // Ph: Axel Drainville/ Flickr

Analysis British values have been left to linger in the shadows for too long, any mention of them often interpreted as a call for the renaissance of Imperial Britain. Their revival through a humanist approach could create a more harmonious society in the UK today

Richard Bolton
Chief Writer

Victor Hugo's resounding reflection, "England has two books, the Bible and Shakespeare. England made Shakespeare, but the Bible made England" encapsulates the birth of modern Britain before the influxes of immigration took hold, and society changed her tack.

Ask an individual on the street today in England what they believe to be the accepted values or heritage of British society, and one may be quoted equal rights, Magna Carta, the freedom to go about one's business without perverse snooping or perhaps a simple answer “tea and crumpets”.

David Cameron, while Prime Minister, was once asked what his understanding of British values was, as, one would hope as our leader, he should know best. His definition encompassed his impassioned respect for British institutions, the rule of law, freedom, tolerance and our social responsibilities to uphold these as individuals. Perhaps this had been cobbled together phrase to 'encapsulate British society' by one of his advisers. If you had a chance to challenge him further on these ideals, you may find little to flesh these ideas out.

In times of empire
The elephant in the room on the nature of values is that for the average Brit today they have become idealised. One need not look too far into the pages of history to realise obvious and despicable instances of Imperialist Britain committing atrocities throughout her colonies. Submission of the Indian subcontinent, notably the Black Hole of Kolkatta; through to the slave trade and concentration camps in the Cape. Centuries of evidence attesting to a contemptible lack of tolerance and respect for the equality of the human 'sub-species' we ruled over.

The hypocritical belief that one can impose a way of thinking on another, while simultaneously demand concessions is deeply un-British. One is left to serve up loaded notions of nationalist superiority. However, when 'history is written by the victors', are we really all that surprised when indifference is applied to the crimes of the past as belonging to a different era, and so not accountable in the modern world. A chequered patchwork in British history replacing one doctrine with another to suit the appetite of the time.

The notion we had desirable British values to uphold in the first instance is lost in the grandeur of our self-righteous historical perspective. However, that is not to say the Empire did not provide values to aspire to. One such instance lies in the Malay Peninsula, notably the East-India trading ports of Penang and Singapore in which land ownership could be claimed by how many trees one could clear. Beyond these localised regions, the Imperial doctrine imposed strict fines of 2 Malaysian ringgits - significant for the time - per tree as one went further inland to discourage deforestation and degradation of the resources and land. Arguably a most responsible law in upholding conservation, especially by contrast with policies which could not seem farther from reality in Malaysia today. Beyond the National Parks, rainforest is burned and cleared at a rate of knots to pave way for palm oil plantations in a vain attempt to realise short term gains before your neighbour outcompetes you. Corruption and under the table deals have lain waste to a once beautiful, tropical paradise, absent of the overarching influence and laws imposed by the colonialists. Values preserving law and order and respect which today's society could look back and be proud of.

The notion we had desirable British values to uphold in the first instance is lost in the grandeur of our self-righteous historical perspective.

A generation forgotten
Today's society in England could not be much further from these times. Senior citizens, once heralded and admired for their wisdom, are not longer respected but scorned by their younger generations as a drain on society, their own free time and resources. A youth too caught up in their own self-gratification, they fail to observe and listen to the stories and advice generations of acquired wisdom has taught them. If you have entered a room in which the average age is retirement upwards and stopped to listen, you may have been be stunned at the visceral clarity in which ideas were spun and addressed. But perhaps also ashamed for having dismissed their opinions or capacity to entertain an interesting distilled conversation because they are not technologically savvy or 'forward-thinking'.

This failing in our society today is perhaps one of the more downhearted and depressing aspects in relationships of the twenty-first century. If we cannot care for and respect our elders, the matriarchs and patriarchs as the bedrocks of our families, then what hope have we for our relationships today?

Fickle, superficial and demanding disregard to those around us who merely desire equal respect and understanding. Our senior citizens have paid an average of £800,000 in taxes over their lifetimes, only to be informed in an off-hand budgetary statement, that their social care is to be cut once more.

Age of austerity
While our economy underwent austerity measures, £16 million was sent to support Ethiopia's Spice Girls girl band project to inspire positive behaviour change. Alongside other speculative and unpopular 'development funds' to countries described by none other than David Cameron as being 'fantastically corrupt'. Projects such as the Spice Girls will not feed the hungry of Ethiopia, nor prevent the spread of HIV or malaria in a country plagued by impoverishment. As Peter Bone, Tory MP, remarked, "up-the-wall projects such as this show why we must not have an aid pledge linked to GDP. This is not helping starving people, this is not helping refugees.”

Foreign British aid projects are just one such window outlining the failings in government misspending. John Caudwell, Britain's largest taxpayer and previous Phones4U founder turned property magnate and philanthropist, condemns the calamitous misappropriation of government budgets, alongside the unnecessary paperwork and red tape strangulating British start-ups and entrepreneurialism within the UK.

Homelessness
How such outlandish expense can be spared while our homeless are left on the streets of Britain, for lack of a better opportunity, represents a society that is failing. Failing to meet the needs of its poor, its helpless and its struggling. Homeless individuals have often worked and paid taxes, yet have not been supported. When times fell tough they have found themselves out rough, sleeping unsafe on the streets. At least their consciences will rest easy as they know their tax contributions will go toward the £365,000,000 refurbishment of Buckingham Palace. If these are the values that represent British society today, one in which the poor are blocked out by passers by on the streets, then they are not worth the breath of uttering them. Political commentator Jonathan Pie succinctly put the homeless problem into a modern, youth orientated perspective as he addressed the obvious truth no one wanted to realise: 'the more the problem gets in your way as you walk down the street, the harder you have to try to look away'.

A generation forgotten // Ph: Brian/ Flickr

The image of a society which is failing // Ph: Patrick Marioné/ Flickr

Law and order
A social justice system crumbling at the seams under budget cuts, to an NHS undersupplied and readily abused or front line army personnel lacking the necessary ammunition, air support or communications devices; all examples testament to the poor decisions made from above. It is not for lack of money, for which there is more than enough to go around, but for ill advised policy decisions and a government with a lack of appreciation for listening to its people.

A police force fearful for their careers and reputation in the midst of an apathetic public are used as punch bags in town centres on Friday and Saturday nights by inebriated individuals. The rich irony resides when the police are sued or dismissed for misconduct later by complaints made by the offending parties, often with better legal rights than the officer or the law. It may seem too implausible to believe and yet here we are.

Forgetting the lessons of the past
The memory of our 'Glorious Dead' from two World Wars, and current servicemen and women today, to whom we pay tribute and thanks are insulted by a Football establishment who fine our Football teams for wearing poppies. Yet, instead of boycotting any further competition under their perverse regulation as we should, we will pay the fine and wear the slight for fear of reprisals from advertising bodies and the wider footballing community. Respect for the past and to learn from the mistakes in history so that we may postpone their repetition should be a key value in Britain today. However, the past is scorned in equal fashion to those instances above.

We pursue wars and 'peacekeeping missions' with our allies and yet have some of the worst track records of returning the favour to our own servicemen. Those who went on duty in Northern Ireland are pursued for crimes while the remaining IRA hide in anonymity without dynamic pursuit, left in peace to their own devices.

Sergeant Alexander Blackman remains in jail on a reduced life sentence for 'murder of the first degree in the field of duty', after briefly losing mental stability during a 'mercy killing' of a Taliban insurgent. Cases such as these reach the forefront of public media attentions while the illegal drugs industry flourishes and the trade in illicit immigrants to the UK remains a hazy grey area for British nationals who are found to be involved. If abandoning our own is another instance of the 'British way', then may God have mercy on us all.

Globalisation
The tide of Globalisation has washed over our shores in a torrent the Thames barrier floodgates could hardly hope to control. Our economy has opened herself up to the wider world, signing new trade deals and agreements, and restructuring to specialise in areas which suit our absolute and relative advantages. Meanwhile, the Government has stood by idly. The structural unemployed are left to fend for themselves, in particular those with non-transferable skills in industries such as steel and coal. National industries, privatised from the 1980s onwards, are gradually sold off to foreign entities or out competed on price leading to their timely closure.

Our national government once again doing a fine job of bending over to foreign companies with UK operations that can and should remain, afraid to criticise or act, for fears of being sued or threats of investment being withdrawn, followed through with. The belief Britain is obliged to uphold the freedoms of her citizens, is waved off without remorse as we leave communities at mercy of the tide of Globalisation without salvage. Unemployed left without supplemented transitory incomes, nor training and education to help adjust to the economic structural changes as we shift further toward a services and quaternary based economy.

The belief Britain is obliged to uphold the freedoms of her citizens, is waved off without remorse as we leave communities at mercy of the tide of Globalisation without salvage.

Brexit, indecision and the EU
A Prime Minister ushered into office by vote of a select few within the country. Added to which she accepts cold shouldering by the other EU leaders as they talk in their own languages deliberately in front of her and refuse to pull a cracker with her at the annual Christmas party. Petty quibbles one may expect in a children's playground tuff, and yet Teresa May decides to overlook these, rather than walk out adamant and resolute.

When our Government Ministers pander to foreign supranational bodies, ousted by means of an internal popular seceding vote, they should pursue the will of the people, however ill advised. Rather than Cameron's meek decision to avoid taking responsibility for any direction the UK should take subsequent to us voting 'against' his vision. Any matter that which involves having to make a decision in politics is a public relations nightmare. Indecisiveness reigns.

Meanwhile, the newly appointed Foreign Secretary, Boris Johnson, fully endorses the UK's contribution to the global arms trade, welcoming once more the International Arms Fair to our Capital. Of particular note, the reciprocity of Saudi incursions into Yemen, utilising our arms in return for future direct access to Saudi Arabian oil reserves. While all this madness ensues, Johnson demands ISIL are tried for war crimes in the international criminal court as Aleppo burns under British shells and missiles, indirectly financed by, once again, Saudi Arabia.

Religious extremism and polarisation
Tackling the illusion of existential threats to our way of life and personal safety from the agents of religious fundamentalism does not neatly align with policies designed to promote freedom of religion and private worship. As Baroness Warsi, the Minister for Faith and Communities, commented on the distances between groups in British society today, "We need to make sure all communities in this country feel like they are British and they are part of the whole".

The existing state of affairs is culturally or ethnically distinct 'enclaves' of faith, not so dissimilar to the Muslim enclave of Srebrenica, in which the massacres ensued, not integrating with the wider British community in learning the English language, accepting our cultural behests, but scorning the wider society as divisive and racist. This reservist attitude lead to proliferations of rumours and fears, creating a 'them' and 'us'. As the history books shall tell us once more, emphasising the difference between two sub cultural identities only leads to further polarisation, and negative consequences, marked by the rise in populist or national collectivist movements in the UK and beyond.

Solving our lost Values: humanist ethics
Fortunately, the future is not all doom and gloom for our nation. Simple accommodating principles are found in Humanist Ethics, without running the risk of labelling these standards as solely and exclusively by association 'British'. This strand of ethics is formulated upon egalitarian principles, "any man should respect another, irrespective of class, race or creed" for there to exist "fundamental moral principles he should count as freedom, justice and tolerance".

Humanist ethics is broad enough in scope to allow for religion in society, but distinct from secularised policymaking. They do not need teaching by rote curriculum, but applied directly in society. Schools should not select on race, sex, creed or affiliation. Access to information should be transparent. Dress codes should be uniform throughout. Prioritisation should not be made to any one class by means of adherence to faith. Removing divisive institutions allows society and the values we mistakenly believe we uphold, to take on actual significance and meaning.

Practice renders our government with a challenging geometrical circle to square up. Faith schools are outmoded representations of divided societies. Now David Cameron has gone, his successor may be able to U-turn the Government's backing of faith schools, to instead promote religious tolerance as an archetype of progress, unshackled from fears of indoctrination or preferential treatment.

Wider Perspectives
Non-British observers may query whether instilling fundamental values in British society is a means of bringing back imperial measurements and re-establishing the 'Empire'.

Mainland Europeans may associate us with tea, queuing and understatement. However, in order for us to ensure we do not retreat further into the safe havens of our differences, adopting sound principles that underpin our society may be the answer - should we be able to implement them without significant, yet misguided, public backlash.

The application of guiding principles requires an understanding of their importance and why their protection is integral to society's wellbeing. All of this without an explicit mention of 'British Values', since we are far too British for that. TMM

0 Comments

The future of cash

5/19/2016

0 Comments

Could this centuries-old monetary system of exchange be on its way out? // Ph: Howard Lake/ Flickr

Analysis FinTech, Bitcoin and other exotic terms are gaining ground in financial language. But are they here to stay? We bring you the latest analysis on the contemporary monetary environment and discuss whether a cashless society is an imminent prospect for the UK

Richard Bolton

In this article, I will discuss the likelihood the UK economy will doggedly pursue cheap, accessible Financial Technology, or ‘FinTech’ for short, following suit with the Scandinavian pioneers in their quest for an intangible "cashless" monetary system of exchange. The scope required under such an operation and the consequences for the wider economy are far fetching for 'cash in hand', 'black market' and tax evasion cohorts, but equally, for the average British consumer.

While cash has yet to vanish from everyday rigmarole, the world's technology giants beaver away to introduce wireless smart phone communication for all. Biometric scanning features are developed to securitise your sensitive data accounts from the ravages identity theft leaves in its wake.

The FinTech revolution
Start-ups are challenging the dominance of many aspects of the banking sector. The newcomers insist that a system ‘too big to fail’ is too set in its ways. It's being called the financial technology - or FinTech - revolution. Google Wallet (Android Pay) was created to rival Apple Pay for close contact, quick payment systems using phones and watches, to fingerprint scanning. Although these two are the common household name brands jumping on the bandwagon, many others have sprung onto the scene. A revolutionary payment accessory for festival goers, Festipay, has partnered with Sziget music festival in Hungary and the country’s leading electronic transaction provider CARDNET to provide 100% cashless payments via their App/cards.

The system, as we know it, is changing. Innovators leave the incumbent giants behind, having underestimated their disruptive evolution. Can Apple and Google alongside major banks pave the way, or are they too fix set in their approach to really restructure the system?

The real pioneers overhauling the current model with their aggressive expansion programme are ‘Stripe’. Their unique selling point is to ease business transactions on-line by providing no-fee transfers. Their model incorporates Apple to aid development of mobile payment technologies, such as digital wallet (payment by electronic devices) with near-field (close contact) communication, or NFC.

Sequoia Capital, one of the more prominent Venture Capital enterprises to grace Silicon Valley, invests in Stripe, alongside PayPal co-founders Elon Musk, Peter Thiel, and Max Levchin. The company is reportedly in the process of raising more cash to expand into wider markets, such as Scandinavia, while perched atop a cosy valuation of $5 billion. David Collison, Stripe co-founder, commented: “One of the reasons we started Stripe was because the barriers to starting an online business had tumbled so much.”

One of the reasons we started Stripe was because the barriers to starting an online business had tumbled so much.
David Collison, co-founder of Stripe

The next 'dot-com' bubble
Advances are indubitable, yet restricted by the habitual nature of consumers. It takes time for consumers to come to grips with the new readily available technology at their fingertips. As the market expands for such products, we may move away from the narrow, controlled environments and approved systems into riskier, more speculative territories. Businesses, equally, have yet to catch up in upgrading their systems to allow for such advanced formats of mobile payments. Many lack the capacity for contactless card, phone or watch scanners in order to accept payments.

The wave of progression may yet stall. Some experts have suggested the industry may be blowing up into the next 'tech bubble'. 16 years have elapsed since the Dot.com bubble reached a climax.

The internet is undergoing a progressive monetisation of popular websites and apps. Charging for site use is considered akin to charging for a party. Internet firms which are well established such as Google with a seven times profit to valuation ratio are secure. However, start-ups do not. They spend large using Angel Investor money with little or no viable proven return for the investment. The hype surrounding these new and exciting apps and lifestyle aided technology software features leads to speculation, and subsequent over valuation. Progressive technology may simply be too far ahead of the game and ingrained consumer habits.

The future of FinTech
The future is here already. Automatic triggering within device reader proximity to the phone or watch. 'Digit scanning' and 'pass code' algorithms breeze off the tip of the tongue at FinTech Conferences and in the mainstream banking sectors’ digital departments. Proprietary unique biological signatures can verify identity having built a biometric picture from fingerprints, eyes, face, heartbeat signature, or voice recognition data. That net ATM withdrawal or online account access by retinal scan could soon be mainstream instead of sci-fi phenomenon for the daily consumer.

A cashless system would represent the ultimate time-saver to the consumer. Some have suggested extracting cash from a wall or paying by card archaic, primitive and easily rectifiable with secured biometrics. Implementing such procedure is not too far removed from reality. According to Credit Suisse, 80% of all purchases in Sweden are electronic, while their supply of physical currency has declined 50% over 6 years, to the extent where even homeless street vendors use mobile card readers.

Government pretexts of counter terrorism, money laundering, stifling black market and tax evasion all inconvenience any such future ‘hard cash’ exchange has.

Though technology undoubtedly may make life more convenient, it is not without its flaws. A survey discovered that young adults would rather frequent their dentist than a bank. These findings play to the speculations millennials are all too willing to ditch brand-name companies for new apps on their smartphones. While the modern consumer appears all too happy to plug in their social security number into a web page, they take laborious efforts to physically go to the teller in the bank. A testimony to changing attitudes and lifestyles or is this merely a sign of the lazy disposition our modern day society has adopted?

David Collison, co-founder of Stripe // Ph: Web Summit/ Flickr

A FinTech conference in Italy // Ph: British Embassy in Italy/ Flickr

FinTech and influencing consumer perspectives
As FinTech shows, the question is not purely one of whether the technology is available to us. There is also a question of trust. The only formative experience millennials hold is the financial crisis. They hold a deep-seated cynicism and suspicion of large corporations, presuming them all to hold the stereotypical self-serving attributes. FinTech is an answer to the aftermath of the crisis to address the trust issues lurking behind a system that did not work. The results are self-evident with $20 Billion investment. The claimed target audience is convenience for lower income families that cannot afford high street bank fees, charges, exchange rates and the dire interest on loans.

In Britain today, it is relatively more expensive for a poor person to bank than a more affluent client. The reason lies behind the special treatment and incentive packages focused at attracting higher savers. Larger pot sizes alongside untouched long term savings in accounts are attractive targets for the banks. These funds can then be utilised to bolster the bank’s Investment branch's liquidity for speculative picks.

Enter high street bank closures
Financial revolution is not without its drawbacks. Three of Britain's largest banks (HSBC, Barclays and RBS) are undertaking bank closures in the region of 400 branches this year. The repercussions from these actions include axing staff and premises. These revelations come under a new programme of cost cutting in the industry that could leave thousands of customers without easy access to a bank. "The bank closures will accelerate the death of the British high street," said Derek French, Campaign director for Community Banking. "This will particularly have a knock on impact on local businesses and the elderly."

UK major banking groups’ branches have halved in the last 20 years and are set to reduce yet further amid profit warnings and tighter capital restrictions. Yet, banks are liable to the marginal degree of a mandatory assessment as to the impact on local communities of a branch closure.

The UK had 25 bank branches per 100,000 adults at close 2014, according to Citigroup. Comparative to our European counterparts Spain and France, with 70 and 38 respectively, we either lag far behind or are poised to join our Scandinavian neighbours in the pursuit of progress.

The bank closures will accelerate the death of the British high street. This will particularly have a knock on impact on local businesses and the elderly.
Derek French, campaign director for Community Banking

The risks of outmoding cash
Waves of speculative media reports disown and discredit current FinTech payment systems as potentially subject to fraud. While the convenience of a tap or wave appeal to consumers, the potential associated risks with outmoding cash remain. Google Wallet has suffered from plights of security vulnerabilities. One such instance was emphatically identified in style at a technology convention by a Zvelo Labs researcher. While technology ploughs on ahead, the phone’s securitisation has lagged somewhat behind.

In this modern age of digital surveillance and infiltration, there is a likelihood hackers are working on ways to exploit systems as with any other networking technologies that utilise the fallible World Wide Web. Remote shut down of digital wallets is not inconceivable.

Governments possess the capacity to isolate individuals' funds or gain access to biometric signatures and data, stifling undesirable activity toward their regimes. The potential repercussions for democracy could be extensive. Public liberties, purportedly espoused by their own governments, are under threat.

Bitcoin and the anonymity conundrum
Bitcoin is a form of digital currency, created and held electronically. It utilises a peer-to-peer system. All nodes verify transactions in a public distributed ledger called the block chain, making it incorruptible and unalterable without the private key information.

The race is on to extract this private key information behind the Block chain technology that is Bitcoin from the alleged Australian founder ‘Craig’, or by his more notorious alias Satoshi Nakamoto. Whether this individual is in fact the creator is unknown. However, it is believed he is being bribed, blackmailed and threatened by those with vested interests in keeping the system watertight.

Coercive extortion is the tip of the iceberg in the dark shady underbelly of an untraceable digital asset and payment system that conceals billions, hidden in plain sight. Everything from the legitimate investor through to tax evaded funds, illegal black market exotic pet trades, weapons, human trafficking, illegal narcotics, and even embezzled political dues may frequent this murky version of monetary Exchange.

Bitcoin is the most mainstream of the 400 digital currencies // Ph: WC

The demise of the "Bin Laden £50 note" // Ph: Richard Bolton

The End of Privacy?
Firms presumed to be driven by profit motivations and maximising shareholder returns, are notorious for selling private information to governments and other firms. However, the worst culprits are to be found if one should follow the paper trails. 'Defence' spending by modern governments has gone unchecked for a long time. The US Government currently has $9 Trillion in unaccounted for military spending and surveillance alone. The audit, issued in 1996, has never been undertaken, nor, perhaps, will it ever unearth the besmirching, incriminating facts.

It remains unclear as to whether there exist any bounds limiting the proliferation of mass surveillance. The precedent has been set in electronic securitisation. The outcome may reduce civil liberties to be leisurely infringed upon or political dissent undermined through COINTELPRO government surveillance networks. For instance, the UK has 1% of world's population but 20% of its CCTV cameras. Britain is now being watched by a staggering 4.2 million - one for every 14 people, despite experts having called for a halt in the proliferation of CCTV cameras.

The desirable anonymity traits of cash
Cash is considered desirable for its anonymity. People enjoy privacy. Naturally, on more subjective or contentious purchases, who wants their names on lists? Take the recent Ashley Madison infidelity hook up webpage hack releasing the streams of personal data on serial cheating offenders in plain view for their partners, business colleagues or employers to view.

Economists have long charted how large denomination notes facilitate money laundering. Cash remains the preferable conduit by which the mafias, gangs and cartels operate, desired for its untraceable qualities. Follow the money trail further from the European high streets and the plot thickens. High value €200-500 notes in vast quantities end up in South America in the hands of the drugs cartels alongside the generic 'greenback' $100 cartel bills.

In retrospect, given that the circulation of the notorious ‘Bin Laden’ £50 note in the UK is considered an accurate indicator as to the extent of the Black Economy, the real surprise would have been were it not utilised for illicit purposes.

The €200 note is set to follow the banned €500 in the UK for this very reason. The €500 note was taken off the streets for the average consumer after it was discovered that only 10 per cent of the €500 million worth of notes brought to Britain were used legitimately. Using notes of even €200 facilitates €20,000 to fit inside a cigarette packet.

Fake exchange bureaus would request stacks of fresh, crisp euros in exchange for high street sterling. Unbeknownst to the British authorities, the British Sterling was acquired via the proceeds of crime. Individuals could then circulate the 'clean' euros discreetly, enabling the hard cash to travel abroad out of the UK in the pocket of a solo passenger.

Sticky trends and securing data
The ultimate flaw in a cashless future is the reliability of being able to pay. Whether your phone or watch dies and you cannot pay for anything presents a considerable hurdle for the engineers to tackle. This comes as many mobile devices are preprogrammed to hold short battery life and ultimately lifespans. The intention behind this ephemerality is to create an artificial consumerism for purchasers to buy the next model in the chain.

Currently, device security encryptions are not up to scratch and humans on a night out or on the tube are not certain they will not lose aforementioned device.

“Breaches” and “hacks” – the damning headlines for software developers that make front pages around the globe. The financial systems and smartphone security may be improved and more traceable than cash ever was, but humans are always a liability. It seems every day we hear about data breaches and payment system hacks, often at the hands of the average consumer’s blunder.

Of equal note, forecasts have not always proved accurate in their future predictions. The movie industry survived the VCR in the 80's and Laser Discs did not replace VHS cassettes in the 90's. Naturally, reconstructing a customary practice for billions of consumers will take time. Nostalgia and inertia are always at work, pushing back the frontiers of change. The secrecy and discrete nature of some version of cash in hand will always hold appeal for certain industries, from untraceable infidelity to the underground black market.

The real questions to pose will be the government’s position in tackling borderline topics. For instance, whether they shall either legalise certain lower category 'casual' drugs or whether implementing a cashless society will stifle the procurers' and dealers’ incomes. Emerging trends are never guaranteed to take off and ultimately the decision lies with the consumers as to how they want their identification to be verified and traced. TMM

0 Comments

Brexit: the Manchester scenario

3/13/2016

0 Comments

Can they remain pals forever? Next episode in June... // Ph: Dave Kellam/ Flickr

Analysis The referendum on Britain's membership of the European Union is now only three months away. Today, we discuss both sides of the debate and explore what each can bring to the city of Manchester

Richard Bolton

A considerable proponent of the student body here in Manchester hail from the Eurozone. In the absence of an integrated, single system, we may see a significant reduction in the Mainland Europe student intake into Manchester universities.

The Union, with Europe, under which free trade and student visa arrangements between participating member states encapsulates the current ease of visa processing, in what is an otherwise strictly controlled immigration state lying outside of the Schengen Zone. Short term consequences of a British 'NO to Europe' vote in the June referendum may mark a swift drop off in the number of university applications from Europe for fears of insecurity, opaqueness and potential loss of funding.

The steady flow of immigrant students, most of whom are young and keen to work, fuels economic growth and helps pay for public services. These higher fees and wider attendance enable the gentrification of city centres with university complexes.
Grants from respective governments are often a lifeline to students on bursaries or funding in order for them to study in the world's sixth most expensive currency economy. The Scandinavian countries, with widely integrated welfare systems, tend to offer their prospective students planning to study abroad figures in the region of £750-1000 a month on top of £14,000 tuition fees prepaid and £6000 accommodation covered. For any given international student this may not seem as though it contributes significantly to our economy. However, add up the 100,000s who study within the UK from abroad and the financial figure soon builds.

London and Partners estimate the net contribution of foreign students to our economy at around £3 Billion and 37,000 jobs while PwC £2.3Bn.

Do the benefits outweigh the costs?
The UK is one of 10 member states who pay more into the EU budget than they get out – only France and Germany contribute more. In 2014/15, Poland was the largest beneficiary, followed by Hungary and Greece.

The UK also gets an annual rebate that was negotiated by Margaret Thatcher, in the form of regional development grants and payments to farmers, which added up to £4.6bn in 2014/15. Britain’s part in international projects is protected regardless of the single market relationship. However, €6.8bn in funding from the EU’s Horizon 2020 is at risk should we leave.

Much of this funding is poured into projects in the north of England. The decline of the northern powerhouse development funding may depend on a number of tough decisions in the UK and Europe. This includes whether the EU itself will embrace reform and whether UK politicians and voters are willing to usher Britain into the deregulated, free trading economy it would need to become outside the EU.

According to the latest Treasury figures, the UK's net contribution for 2014/15 was £8.8bn - nearly double what it was in 2009/10. To put that in context, it is about £24m a day or about 1.4% of total public annual spending - slightly less than the energy and climate change department's annual budget.

However, the student body from the EU comes to the rescue in style. The National Audit Office, using a different formula which takes into account EU money paid directly to private sector companies and universities to fund research, and measured over the EU's financial year, shows the UK's net contribution for 2014 was £5.7bn.

PM David Cameron will have some tough months ahead // Ph: Medill DC/ Flickr

Funded by the EU // Ph: Duncan Hull/ Flickr

The demographic stance
Younger people are expected to vote to remain in the EU, while older voters tend to favour out. But as a general rule, older people are more likely to vote in elections than younger people

When shall we expect the campaigns?
Ultimately, the economic impact of Brexit is not as clear cut as to the direction it shall take on. However the official campaign period is from 15 April to 23 June, providing the critical window for both sides to air their proposals and views.

Who is in control of the ship?
Currently, Mario Draghi, President of the European Central Bank in Frankfurt, stands as the intermediary banking middle man for delegation and dispersion of monetary contributions. He delegates funds into regeneration and development projects within the EU with reserves breaching €526 Billion at his disposal.

A considerable stake of member contributions floods toward Eastern European infrastructure and capital investment programs. While the UK receives trickling measures into the northern regions to pursue similar policies. However, were the UK to leave, this short term financing for investment expenditure may well dry up for cities such as Manchester.

Westminster may well be forced to cut back further to contain the budget and currency account deficits expanding. In pursuing said policy, the likely consequence would be to reign in public finances to councils and constituencies up and down the country.
This course of action would lead to Manchester being stifled of vital funding to secure its future as a cosmopolitan, services based, financial and trading hub to rival that of London for contributions to overall GDP.

The potential in going solo
Britain will only prosper outside the EU if it is prepared to use its new found freedom to undertake active steps towards trade liberalisation and deregulation. The EU is not inherently free trade and mutual cooperation, it simply provides a framework for these desirables. This is a framework that can be replicated with many countries and regional blocs.

On the contrary, EU directives are often considered a hindrance to real negotiation with the emerging powers. China, Malaysia and Indonesia have all voiced confidence they would arrange new mutually beneficial deals with the UK. Exclusion from the EU directives would not necessarily impinge on Britain's expansionary progress for the existence of outside trading partners. The historical lineage of the UK as head of the Commonwealth and the long standing special relationship with America render not being able to establish trade links outside the EU as improbable. More plausibly the fear mongering has got the better of us.

Opening up the UK economy to trade with the rest of the world – including the USA, India, China and Indonesia – is essential to economic growth post-Brexit. However, this would mean exposing UK firms and workers to whole new levels of competition from low-cost countries, and would therefore be politically very sensitive.
One such conjecture to premeditated departure is the Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership - TTIP for short - currently under negotiation between the EU and United States. The precedent would set the most expansive trading bloc the world has ever witnessed generating alleged benefits to the tune of £10 Billion a year for Britain. Would we lose out on this arrangement should we leave as result of our diminished collective bargaining power? Unlikely is perhaps the suitable response.

Jeremy Corbyn voiced his concerns to Parliament over a world outside the EU. He notes a further shift in power away from National government toward corrupt, warped, mutant multinational corporation capitalism would create a precedent for further proliferation.

In addition to business turmoil, Brexit may undermine public services, deteriorate food standards with American permitted chemicals used in food production toxic to humans. For instance, many American food exports currently violate EU health and safety standards for pesticide and fungicide pollutants, antibiotic resistant bacteria and rbST (recombinant bovine growth hormone).

Corbyn voiced the potential harm to basic rights of a stable job environment and protection from poorly regulated markets outside the EU. For instance, the poisonous Corona beer scam and fake faulty chainsaws from China injuring users from chain recoil and snapping.

Critics acknowledge the process is already underway and insuppressible regardless of Britain's outcomes. That to avoid the opportunity based on some forgone moral principles we once held was to linger in the past occluded from the economic benefits accessible to our country.

Jeremy Corbyn notes a further shift in power away from National government toward corrupt, warped, mutant multinational corporation capitalism would create a precedent for further proliferation.

A Liberal policy for labour migration?
Amongst those voters who want to leave the EU, a majority rank limiting free movement and immigration as their main motivation, meaning the UK may move in the opposite direction to opening up on leaving Union.
"Red tape" within the EU may well amount to no more than euphemism for employment rights and environmental protection. Working Time Directives and the temporary agency workers directive restrict working hours and the capacity for firms to hire and fire with ease.

Leaving the EU may improve job market efficiencies, in particular labour productivity. Alternatively, it may lead to further discrimination of certain worker demographics, such as disabled or black minorities, by the fraternity style business environment.

Excusing ourselves from the table
Article 50 is the only established legal way to leave the EU, yet it is a major liability. Once triggered, there is no turning back. Article 50 excludes the UK from key decisions as well as the final vote for a minimum period of 2 years. The EU sits at the helm of the timetable during the negotiations phase. Following this spell, the UK could be presented with a ‘take it or leave it’ deal. Speculation and trends have shown that leaving arrangements without a preferential trading agreement would dent British GDP significantly.

Given the difficulty in leaving the EU and the extent of the political and economic challenges the UK would need to overcome to make Brexit work in its long-term interests, it would be foolhardy to leave without first testing the limits of EU reform. Limiting the areas of EU interference and further market liberalisation would be the most beneficial option for both the UK and the EU, though critiques have argued that were Britain to expend the same energies into reforming the EU as it is to Brexit potential, both would be far better off.
In the meantime, we sit a second fiddle at the table pledging £24 million net a day to inefficient glacial bureaucracy. In the context of an increasingly globalised world, bloc trade arrangements have become necessary to stifle this progression toward further integration and openness. The USA and Europe, if TTIP goes ahead, may merely reflect another step forward in the process of wider amalgamation that prevents us from going any further.

The lack of distinct clarity from our government's competence and aptitude at the negotiation table pushes my disposition to side more with the 'YES' to Union. The negative repercussions in leaving on poor terms with EU jurisdiction for a further two years would incur considerable short term pain and significant job losses.

Union represents on another level the opportunity of a support platform given we are not the same power we once were in the days of Imperial rule and collective Commonwealth identity. This is aptly summarised by Lord Alfred Tennyson in Ulysses: "We are not now that strength which in old days moved earth and heaven...made weak by time and fate."

On a final note, in an environment without bounding constraint nor regulation from a higher supranational body we expose ourselves to the mercy of our own government. In a developed and liberal economy as Britain one should have no immediate cause for concern you say.

For those who remain indecisive and ambivalent, remain under no disillusionment that big money is at play in the decision making process. Take Rupert Murdoch, the last Tycoon Media Mogul owner of The Times, BSkyB and The Sun, on his Brexit position: "When I go into Downing Street they do what I say; when I go to Brussels they take no notice." TMM

0 Comments

Syria strikes a majority

12/6/2015

0 Comments

Each air mission will cost £1 million, according to a Sky News estimate // Ph: SAC Sally Raimondo/ RAF

Analysis As British parliament sanctions air strikes on Syria with 397 votes in favour and only 223 votes against, we ask whether the gains will outweigh the losses in yet another long shot at peace in the Middle East

Richard Bolton

Fire blazes in the skies above the scorched Syrian desert. Another hospital fire bombed by Russian bombers. Innocent civilians, the collateral damage ligament to the Western bombing campaign to scourge Syrian and Iraqi fundamentalist strongholds. As the decision to launch air strikes was appealed in Parliament, what does the future hold for this region in disarray? Will our intervention make a significant difference to counteract the rise in Islamic radicalisation?

Understanding the context to the unrest in the region is key before engaging the complex interrelations in the Middle East. Dwindling economic growth and the concurrent Arab Spring uprisings engaged and inspired populations disenfranchised with the incumbent plutocratic regimes to up roots and take to the streets in the name of 'democratisation'.

It is worth noting the case of a dominant regime intervening as the exception to the successful uprisings. The Bahraini principality managed to preserve the original Monarchist state and power structures by means of outside support. When facing uprisings, Bahrain was propped up by Western neo-conservatism through a Saudi Arabian Gulf Co-operation Council (GCC) proxy allied war. The allegiances preserved the authoritarian structures, preventing the power vacuums we see today in Syria.

The principle interest of western states in the Middle East seemed, at least superficially, to lie within those countries who could provide favourable contribution to their national securities. The pre-eminent factor in preserving Western energy security in Bahrain was its abundant natural resource stocks. Unfortunately for Syrian stability, Assad did not share the common features or association with other Arab states. Instead, he chose to partner with Russia and China in allegiances and so was left to the whims of revolutionary overhaul and turmoil.

We elect the representative body in the House of Commons for the very reason they make the difficult decisions others are not prepared to

The stance adopted by America toward Russia in the wake of Turkey shooting down the fighter jet emphasises the Western power assertions by the US as the world's focal hegemonic state. The distrust and antagonism paint a bleak picture of flagrant disregard for states outside of their own, caught up in selfish foreign policy agendas. Icy tensions and proxy wars reminiscent of defunct Cold War ideologies, epitomise the current distrust between the hegemonic nation states, begging the question: are the interventions really in Syria's best interest?

The fundamental agenda for much of Parliament lay with the legality of intervention in a post Iraq war environment. The establishing of a United Nations resolution underpinned the legitimacy of intervention in the region for the undecided cohorts. While the proviso for legality lies with the creation of government structures in the power vacuum void left post-Islamic State, and prior to, the Assad regime.

Given the motion 'to bomb' was passed in hast without resolute establishment of no-bombing zones for civilians, a condition Russia has violated in indiscriminate attacks on ISIL held Deir-ez-Zor amounting to civilian casualties. When juxtaposed with the lack of a credible strategy for diplomatic Syrian settlement, this only served to perpetuate the cyclical disarray we impose on the region.

These outcomes are mere repercussions and ramifications of failures to address the refugee crisis, civilian casualties, the impact of the terrorist threat, or lending enough pressure on Gulf states to become involved in resolving the issue and investigating jihadi funding, all with greater gumption than we are currently seeing. The populist voice renders it better to take action rather than pursue a course of inaction.

Jeremy Corbyn criticised the government's 'knee-jerk' reaction and objected profusely to the labelling of himself a 'terrorist sympathiser', claiming it not only undermined the severity of deliberations but demeaned the office of the Prime Minister. Corbyn desired lucid and unequivocal resolution by the United Nations to sanction military intervention in the region as precursor to any interference. The lack of apologies by Cameron exemplified the out of touch accountability and contempt his inner circle display toward lives in these regions compared with their own backyard.

Austerity measures in tandem with a engaging in war against ISIL marks a noteworthy contradiction. The claim that we cannot spend outside of our means and need to balance the budget becomes the justification for not being able to afford a public NHS, nor welfare support for the lower income classes or disabled. This is reflected in the £12 billion cuts to tax credits in the Autumn statement and reduction in public services, impacting lower income earners more likely to utilise and need them. While simultaneously, according to Sky News, each RAF mission will cost in the region of £1 million, with the allowance for differing payload operations. The disparity was emphasised by a minority from Labour and other subsidiary opposition, and in acknowledgement are labelled as 'unpatriotic' and as 'terrorist sympathisers'. The ambivalence between the dichotomies is self-evident of the untruth that 'We are all in it together'.

David Cameron with British troops in Afghanistan, 2012 // Ph: Corporal Steve Blake RLC

Lunch-time // Ph: Cpl Jamie Peters RLC / Royal Navy

The viable prospective for progress in the region appears to lie with splitting the states according to their cultural distinctions, namely Kurds to the North, a Sunni centrality and Shia to the western provinces. While, as undesirable as it may be, Bashar Al-Assad may be the only viable candidate, under Russian jurisdiction, to unify the state of Syria. Whether a unified state is the best outcome is another matter altogether. France, in the aftermath of the Parisian bombings, softened its hard line approach to Russian belligerence, and may well concede in sanctioning Assad back in as the figurehead.

Placating Russia appears the only viable alternative to all out rising tensions between the western states, although the distorted media frenzy may well blow the discrepancies out of proportion. This extends to the degree that Cameron sought to push and 'whip' the motion through Parliament to further his poise as a 'strong and active' leader of Britain, brought to bear as a member of NATO, even if this comes at the expense of his morality. Time shall tell.

The current state of affairs in the region where ISIL has been allowed to grow and establish to such an extent is the real tyranny in this situation. That is what renders divergent options of peace promoting ideals, democracy and intervention without use of force unviable in light of the context today.

While media outlets and closet politicians spring out of the woodwork, quick to judge and belittle the constitutional processes, real debate was held in Westminster for ten hours. This led to sweeping indecision and discrepancy. Contradictions were voiced amongst members of the same parties, leading to apparent splits within Labour, posing the question of two distinct Labour offshoot parties in future.

We elect the representative body in the House of Commons for the very reason they make the difficult decisions others are not prepared to. While they have to live with their choices, we can continue as if nothing significant has happened in our lives in the run up to Christmas, consciences clear in the assuring belief, we had not passed judgement over someone's life or death.

Democracy is messy, no one pretends it is not. TMM

0 Comments

Search the site...

Selling Off the Family Silver

The state of British values

The future of cash

Brexit: the Manchester scenario

Syria strikes a majority

features by

The manchester magazine