Little Thoughts

Lockerbie: Call me cynical but....

Why are people (read: the press) convinced that there was more to the release of the Lockerbie bomber than compassion?

Allegations of some mega-deal involving al-Megrahi, Britain, oil, Libya, and god knows what else, persist. As amusing as it is and annoying. Amusing in that people believe Kenny MacAskill is capable of such geo-political gamesmanship; annoying because opponents cannot not accept morality as motive for release.

When did cynicism become so rife that the line: I’m doing this out of human decency, merit the response: yeah right, what you getting in return.

To believe that Britain sacrificed the only man convicted of the worst terrorist atrocity this country has ever seen to secure a few barrels of crude and warmer relations with a manic despot is as laughable as the belief that troops died in Iraq for the same substance.

Not everything is about oil. Despite what might be written in sure-footed newspapers and nasal-gazing books. Energy security may well become the defining issue of the 21st century, yet the volatility of the oil market (as shown by the surge, collapse and resurge in prices) indicates that this is more an issue for 2059 than 2009. By that I mean, the time when wars are fought and deals conducted for oil is not yet upon us. Only conspiracy theorists and the misguided argue otherwise.

Oppose this decision if you like, but do so responsibly.

The leader’s debate: Is a silly idea.

In case anyone is not aware Britain has a PM and not a President. As such a Presidential debate (which the leader’s debate is) distorts Britain’s democratic process.

Without wishing to condescend, voters here vote for a candidate, who stands on a nationwide party manifesto. As such a Leader’s debate where one compares the rhetoric of Brown to Cameron helps not in deciding whether Jim Pollock or Nancy Chippendale best represents Birmingham East. To pretend so is to mislead.

Furthermore it is not up to Sky News to dictate the functions of modern democracy. Once we hold one leader’s debate it will become a mainstay- like the American equivalent- but without the replicate electoral system.

Adherents argue it will reconnect voter and politician. How? By reducing manifestoes to three minute sound bites- well there’s a nod to dumbing down. A prime-time debate will cast aside substance for bickering, posturing and loud-mouthing. (No wonder Sky News is a fan).

Bonuses for Bankers: What a good idea.

Capping bankers pay is no way to restore the global economy. Incentives are all in the realm of finance so why disincentive the very people required to bring prosperity back to flagging economies.

Understandably demonised for indiscretion it is sometimes forgotten that boom as well as bust is the fault of the banker.

The very speculation now derided was necessary to the sustained period of growth previously enjoyed. Thus, while financiers shouldn’t be overly rewarded, capping salaries is mere political posturing from governments that wish to conceal their own part in economic meltdown 2008.

If you want the good-times to return then bankers must remerge, bonuses in toe.

Leia Mais…

Discrimination is bad (except when directed at men)

Feminism has always seemed to me a concept for a generation gone by. Sexism, gender discrimination and that “women’s place is in the kitchen” lark, have all be chucked into society’s dustbin of bygones, alongside institutional racism, chimney sweeps and powdered egg.

However Harriet Harman has a different opinion. Her week temping in No. 10 was notable for the (gladly metaphoric) waft of burning-bras originating from the cabinet office. Indeed Mrs Harman would probably take issue with that last sentence, evidence it being of my own prejudice in favour of beautiful women. To her, I, like every other man, require constant female supervision; for if left to my own devises I would probably spend all my money on bacon, or drawing up plans for a giant machine that lets dogs talk, or ruining the worlds finances, or just simply banging my head against a brick wall over and over.

When she announced that the Labour party should never again be run by a cabal of men, that the global credit crunch could have been prevented if more women were involved in finance and that in up-coming elections Labour should adopt women-only shortlists, Mrs Harman became the voice for blind-sighted, bigoted, feminism everywhere.

Discrimination is bad, except when it’s directed against men, is hardly a progressives’ opinion, yet it seems the sum of 21st century feminism.

To believe that women manage finance better than men is a valid opinion but to stretch such a view to claim that financial crises could be avoided if more women called the boardroom home is to misunderstand economics and do a disservice to the many women who do work in the City.

Given, finance is male dominated but that’s the nature of the labour-market. Career paths aren’t pigeon-holed, people levitate to the jobs they desire, explaining why persons of different personality choose different specialties. Most of the time this is self-enacted, very few are forced towards detested careers. Thus ,if companies (or party-selection committees) were forced to employ more women not only would the free market be distorted but talent would lose in tandem with meritocracy. Furthermore isn’t it insulting to suggest a helping-hand is required in order for women to achieve?

The counter-argument is that regardless of what legislation says women are still discriminated against whether subconsciously or not. The virtue of this position is it is impossible to disprove and in all actual fact correct. I don’t doubt that in some cases women are turned down because a man is preferred but I also don’t doubt that occurrences are becoming rarer as a generation that saw women’s place in the home, heads there itself, into retirement.

What annoys me about Mrs Harman is not her point but her tone. Feminism in its true sense is dead because it has succeeded. A blast from the past, such as we got this week, which chastises men, only makes the proponent look silly. Mrs Harman has some good things to say but needs to change her style. To suggest men wreck markets is to suggest that if only Fred Godwin were Fran Godwin things would be alright, WELL NO THEY WOULD BE THE SAME (OR A BIT WORSE). If Mrs Harman wants to talk about how crap men are at finance then I want to talk about how crap women are at football (or being Home Secretary) (and I thought women were good at filing) but I won’t because that would be sexist and sexism is wrong (except when it’s directed at men).

Leia Mais…

T.V. Times: Don't cry over broken lunchboxes

So I’m watching the news and the subject’s Swine Flu (something this blog has already delicately covered) and in amongst the jovial scaremongering and hysteria-whipping the opinions of a very stern looking Dr of some ilk are contrasted, on an equal footing, with a Norwich mother of three concerned about the imminent death of every single soul she’s procreated, spoken to, met, read about, seen, smelt and passed by.

The battling doc attempts to calm fears by mentioning exaggerated estimates and worst case scenarios given too much credence; fire-fighting sadly lost upon Mum of the year who, although lacking any medical training, is sure that her collection of third-party evidence and playground anecdotes renders the well-judged opinions of the doctor redundant.

“I’m very worried” she says.

“Don’t be” replies chuckling Dr.

This mini-story is part of trend within T.V. news that annoys me, a lot. Namely people who know zilch about a subject are placed upon a pedestal next to someone who does, ensuring mild farce as education is constantly belittled by wild guesstimation and general wrongness.



So we get a vox-pop asking “man-on-the-street” (instead of a boring, suit-wearing expert) what he thinks about the Bank of England’s Quantitative easing - “erm, yeah, very good, you know I think it’s good they’re doing something, unlike Mr Brown. And well yeah it should make a difference, I hope. [laugh]” when really most people would struggle to name the man who runs the Bank never mind the minutia of his policies.

By the way there is no shame in that, ordinary folk aren’t meant to know the ins and outs of macroeconomics. But by the same degree the same ordinary folk shouldn’t be asked to comment on a world they don’t understand. Previously the thoughts of Mum from Norwich would be listened to but kindly dismissed as important in the same way a four-year olds’ concern about a broken lunchbox is important.

Yet now the lunchbox is a stick (or a lunchbox) with which to batter the bewildered expert; government ministers are caught off guard when mid-interview they are confronted with a gaggle of mildlysensical angry opinions formulated by the type of person who is at home on a Tuesday mid-morning. And doctors have to calm the public by not only simplifying misunderstood medicine but defending such simplification in the face of fearful normals who prove the maxim: a little knowledge is a dangerous thing.

So I guess we need to ban people who cry over broken lunchboxes from appearing on the news. That is unless before their appearance we are told they cry over broken lunchboxes. Then some stern looking chap, who would never cry if his lunchbox were broken (even if it were his favourite lunchbox), tells us why you should never trust someone who cries over broken lunchboxes. Thus restoring the balance between man who knows what he's talking about and man that doesn't.

Leia Mais…