A Christmas calculation

There is a simplicity to being cynical which cannot be denied. An easy way to sum up human interaction as nothing more than self interest. It is a view which personifies much of economics and which has shaped the world we live in.
Instead of trying to take that leap into the darkness, where we can see that not everything is motivated by greed and desire, we take the path of least resistance. We assume as a species that the actions of others will be to maximise their own gains with no regards to the repercussions on those around them. Logically it falls on each of us to only think of ourselves and try and get the best deal we can before the rest of the world catches up, otherwise generally known as backward induction where you use your knowledge of what the last move will be to work backwards in an attempt to ensure you get the best deal in each round.
The depressing notion of self interest falls down in one key respect though, it fails to take humanity into account.
The last 12 months have seen some of the most devastating scenes in our generation. The mass exodus from Syria, the attacks in France and Tunisia, bombings in Lebanon, wars and terrorism throughout Nigeria, Afghanistan, Iraq, Ukraine, Yemen, Gaza and Israel, Egypt and repeated mass shootings in America are all only a tiny fraction of the pain and misery the world has suffered through.
In the face of such acts of violence and callous disregard for the lives of others the principle of self interest is clear and understandable. Where it is undermined however isn't in the grand headline grabbing actions of a crazed minority. It is in the selfless acts, those who when the first shots were fired didn't run from the chaos but put themselves between the bullets and others. Humanity has shone through as people have fought to retain that glimmer of hope for those who need it most. Those who didn't shut themselves off against the storm but threw their doors open to refugees and those who still strive to do just what they can to make others lives better.
A focus on Game Theory demonstrates that self interest is not always the most profitable approach. By collaborating individuals may not achieve the Parreto optimal strategy, where you cannot become better off without someone else losing out, they can however achieve a dominant strategy, or more simply the best course of action for each player knowing what the other player will do.
Self interest is fine for modelling strategies but it is not realistic when applied to the real world.
At this time of year that feeling of collaboration should be stronger than ever. It is all too easy to see the holiday season as nothing but an excuse for even greater crass commercialisation than usual. For many western high street retailers it is a season where the laws of supply and demand are everything as sales account for approximately 40% of their annual earnings. It is so much more than that though. It is a time when we can think about what really matters. A time of reflection and peace. It is most of all though a time to realise that there is so much more to this world than the maximisation of self interest. If the old economics is to be overturned it won't be through campaigns against capitalism or shouting slogans. It will be about taking a moment from our own selfish ideals and thinking about others. If we act on those thoughts then just imagine the benefit to all.

COP21 must act as catalyst for construction industry

The success of the Paris Climate Change agreement must be tempered by a realisation of how difficult it will be to achieve.
For the construction sector in particular it provides a challenge which will be hard for some countries to overcome. At present the construction industry is responsible for more than 30% of the world greenhouse gas emissions. As the delegates at the climate change conference fly back to their home nations on private airplanes it will fall to the construction industry to ensure that they can meet the target of below two degrees for global warming.
Recent statistics have given rise to the prediction that the global population could be nearing 10 billion by 2050, about the same time that global greenhouse gas is expected to rise by 70%. With such a dramatic increase in population comes and equally dramatic need for construction. 10 billion people need homes to live in, hospitals to be born and treated in, schools to be educated in, factories and offices to work in, shops to buy goods in, roads to travel along and on and on. The construction industry is set for a period of growth, even taking into account that the majority of those born between now and 2050 will be in developing countries without necessarily having access to all of the facilities which would be hoped.
If the global construction industry is going to meet the needs of these dual issues then it is going to need to start adapting to new technologies and embracing some existing ones.
The construction of Passivhaus builds for example could become the norm as an increasing number of architects and contractors see them to being the solution to meet the current climate change targets. “With innovative new technologies and expected cost reductions, climate-damaging emissions can be further cut, leading to an eventual complete decarbonisation of the sector”, Oliver Rapf, Executive Director of the Buildings Performance Institute Europe (BPIE) writes on the subject in a publication for the think tank Friends of Europe.
The principles behind Passivhaus design are quite simple, and play nicely to the principles set out in the Paris Climate Change Agreement, Carbon Dioxide emissions are reduced as the energy consumption of these build is limited by their heat retention capability. Likewise in hot weather the buildings ability to maintain a constant temperature internally through its design prevents the need for air conditioning or other energy intensive measures. Even with a new focus on renewable energy the increased efficiency of Passivhaus builds is likely to be an area of growth in the future, after all preventing the need for the energy consumption is preferable to needing even green energy sources.
"Renewable energy is absolutely essential for climate protection, but better efficiency offers even greater potential", says Dr. Wolfgang Feist, Director of the Passive House Institute.
Forty-five years from now the world and the construction sector in particular will be a very different place. The evidence for this is simple just look at the construction industry in 1965 compared to today. By embracing new ecological and sustainable building practices the industry in 2050 can still be the driving economic force it is now, more importantly though it could potentially be the driving environmental one as well.

Sugar tax leaves a sour taste

THE figures are startling and should be cause for concern however imposing ill thought through taxes is not the answer
According to recent figures one in three children leaving primary school is overweight, or obese. This is not to say, as some newspapers have claimed, that this same proportion of children are obese, just that they are over the recommended weight for their size.
The Common’s Health Committee is now proposing a tax on sugary drinks to help combat the epidemic of obesity which they see as infecting the country. A pigovian tax on sugar in the UK would fail to do anything more than cause even more fear among those parents already aware of the dangers of too much sugar and penalize families from the lower end of the income spectrum though. At best it would create a temporary decline in the amount of sugary drinks being consumed as a result of the media coverage; however, the overall impact in the long term would be negligible on the consumption habits of individuals.
Much has been made of the impact a similar tax has had in Mexico. Proponents of the legislation are only relying on a micro focus rather than looking at the larger picture. In Mexico the tax is based on per litre servings of sugary drinks. While the data shows that there has been a drop in the consumption of larger bottles experts have calculated that this reduction can be explained by people shifting to purchasing smaller servings. One such study led by Emilio Gutiérrez, a professor at Mexico’s ITAM University calculated that this shift in consumption habits from larger to smaller servings could account for 60% of the documented drop, while not actually creating a decline in the overall amount of sugary drinks being consumed.
Pigovian taxes are intended to address problems associated with negative externalities in the market, such as the health risks linked to too much sugar. By imposing these taxes states hope to combat inefficient market outcomes by imposing a cost for negative behaviours. They are already used in regards to smoking and alcohol and it has been suggested that such taxes should be imposed on fatty goods as well as sugar.
One of the key problems in imposing them though is in ensuring that the negative social consequences of the good, or action being taxed, is correctly calculated to ensure that it is balanced against the rate of tax being imposed.
Due to the overall costs of sugary drinks the level of taxation on each bottle would result in minimal revenues and marginal, overall, increases cost of the end product. In Mexico the tax started at about 10c on the dollar before being reduced to 6 cents. This type of increase would in most case be absorbed by the producers, who will still be making supernormal profits on their goods, and in cases where it isn’t is unlikely to be enough to deter people from making the purchase.
The cumulative effect of the increase, in the cases where it is passed onto the consumer, is most likely to hit those at the lower end of the income threshold. The theory of the tax increasing the substitution effect fails to take into account behavioral triggers which drive particular groups to purchase specific goods. Certain labels have a cache about them which creates a system of conspicuous consumption, particularly among the young and less educated, which will not alter with the creation of the tax and won’t be altered by any amount of substitution factor.
The concept of the tax has been drawn up by well intentioned individuals who haven’t realised the real draw of sugary drinks. There is a reason why people buy Coke and not the supermarket own brand. It isn’t about the cost. If obesity is really to be tackled then taxes on sugary drinks won’t do it. Increased education about health issues and more exercise programmes in school may be the way to go, if only we could find a way to fund them.

Sugar tax leaves a sour taste

THE figures are startling and should be cause for concern however imposing ill thought through taxes is not the answer
According to recent figures one in three children leaving primary school is overweight, or obese. This is not to say, as some newspapers have claimed, that this same proportion of children are obese, just that they are over the recommended weight for their size.
The Common’s Health Committee is now proposing a tax on sugary drinks to help combat the epidemic of obesity which they see as infecting the country. A pigovian tax on sugar in the UK would fail to do anything more than cause even more fear among those parents already aware of the dangers of too much sugar and penalize families from the lower end of the income spectrum though. At best it would create a temporary decline in the amount of sugary drinks being consumed as a result of the media coverage; however, the overall impact in the long term would be negligible on the consumption habits of individuals.
Much has been made of the impact a similar tax has had in Mexico. Proponents of the legislation are only relying on a micro focus rather than looking at the larger picture. In Mexico the tax is based on per litre servings of sugary drinks. While the data shows that there has been a drop in the consumption of larger bottles experts have calculated that this reduction can be explained by people shifting to purchasing smaller servings. One such study led by Emilio Gutiérrez, a professor at Mexico’s ITAM University calculated that this shift in consumption habits from larger to smaller servings could account for 60% of the documented drop, while not actually creating a decline in the overall amount of sugary drinks being consumed.
Pigovian taxes are intended to address problems associated with negative externalities in the market, such as the health risks linked to too much sugar. By imposing these taxes states hope to combat inefficient market outcomes by imposing a cost for negative behaviours. They are already used in regards to smoking and alcohol and it has been suggested that such taxes should be imposed on fatty goods as well as sugar.
One of the key problems in imposing them though is in ensuring that the negative social consequences of the good, or action being taxed, is correctly calculated to ensure that it is balanced against the rate of tax being imposed.
Due to the overall costs of sugary drinks the level of taxation on each bottle would result in minimal revenues and marginal, overall, increases cost of the end product. In Mexico the tax started at about 10c on the dollar before being reduced to 6 cents. This type of increase would in most case be absorbed by the producers, who will still be making supernormal profits on their goods, and in cases where it isn’t is unlikely to be enough to deter people from making the purchase.
The cumulative effect of the increase, in the cases where it is passed onto the consumer, is most likely to hit those at the lower end of the income threshold. The theory of the tax increasing the substitution effect fails to take into account behavioral triggers which drive particular groups to purchase specific goods. Certain labels have a cache about them which creates a system of conspicuous consumption, particularly among the young and less educated, which will not alter with the creation of the tax and won’t be altered by any amount of substitution factor.
The concept of the tax has been drawn up by well intentioned individuals who haven’t realised the real draw of sugary drinks. There is a reason why people buy Coke and not the supermarket own brand. It isn’t about the cost. If obesity is really to be tackled then taxes on sugary drinks won’t do it. Increased education about health issues and more exercise programmes in school may be the way to go, if only we could find a way to fund them.

Inclusion trumps isolation in the war on terror.

The events in Paris have simultaneously brought out moments of the best and worst of humanity in the news. The demonstrations of solidarity throughout the world are incredible and should be supported. Never before has the overuse of red, white and blue neon lighting been so welcomed across the world.

Meanwhile, however, there is a growing feeling of isolationism and hatred which has started to take grip. It is no longer a surprise that Republican Presidential nominees have to take an anti-immigration stance if they want to appeal to the vocal right, what has been something of a surprise is just how vile some of the recent comments have been. When Donald Trump suggests that Muslims should have to sign a register or Ben Carson likens them to rabid dogs and they can still stand a chance at winning the nomination then there is something very wrong with the system.

As easy as it is to ridicule the Republicans and their increasingly isolationist ideas it isn’t just the American system of government which is taking an anti-refugee, anti-immigration stance. Across the world the fear of refugees has been growing and the attacks in France have just helped elevate the rhetoric of the right wing to new heights.

It is easy to explain that we should be helping people who need it. It is pretty obvious to most people that the majority for those who are fleeing for their lives are not planning terrorist attacks. The amount of news coverage has made it clear to the majority of semi educated individuals with an average GCSE reading age that the potential proportion of refugees who may harbour jihadist sympathies is such as small fraction as to be mathematically insignificant. Of course the risk of one individual with a bomb must be taken seriously and sensible measures taken to prevent them. Denying millions of the chance of a safe life away from the bloodshed is not the way.

New housing policies in the UK for example, ensuring that landlords have to get specific documentation and id from potential tenants, will not prevent people running to Britain. It may delay them from finding shelter, however, after living rough for months and spending all of their money getting there is unlikely to deter them for long. What it will do though is start to create isolated communities, communities which are willing to only accept people of the same religion, ethnicity, culture. Instead of protecting the country it allows for a sense of isolation to spread and from there the increased risk of radicalisation.

There are many other policies being suggested across Europe and the West and almost all of them will lead to an increase in the threat of radicalisation. Terrorism fails to flourish when people are educated about multiculturalism. It relies on a feeling of persecution and hatred, it is almost impossible for it to spread in an atmosphere of inclusion and understanding.

If governments are serious about stopping the spread of terrorism then they need to dramatically alter their current mindsets. Of course threats need to be identified and stopped but creating a persecution complex is not the way to do it. Only be promoting genuine understanding and tolerance can terrorism truly be defeated. Although isolating some of the Republican Presidential candidates may not be an entirely bad idea.

Cost of terror

The tragic events in Paris last Friday have left Europe reeling. Politicians have been clamoring to denounce the atrocity and by chance announce their latest round of measures to tackle any such threat in the future.
Social media has been inundated with people declaring their solidarity with the French. Others though have criticised the outpouring of emotion as a colonial attitude which should have been just as strong when a suicide bomber in Beirut murdered more than 40 people, or Islamic State allegedly brought down a passenger jet leaving Sharm el-Sheik.
Why have people not been so quick to share their sympathy? Of course there is the sad fact that many people do only care about things which happen on their doorstep . They know where France is and therefore it means more to them  This is not the reason for so much emotion over one event and not the other. The sad fact is that a suicide bomber in Beirut or a passenger jet being blown out of the sky aren’t shocking any more. We have become inculcated against the emotion response that they should engender.
This is a terrible fact to acknowledge and it has even more terrible consequences. As we become more used to a wider variety of terrorist actions then the terrorists will have to start becoming even more extreme if they want to maintain the same level of fear among the population.
Terrorism isn’t new. It isn’t about religion, ideology, politics, hate, or any of the multitude of different reasons which are trotted out. It has little to do with an influx of refugees, aside from acknowledging that these are the same people they are fleeing from. It is down to individuals. Individuals who believe that they are somehow better than other people. They may use religion as an excuse  it Islam has as little to do with IS as Christianity does with the Klu Klux Klan.
Terrorists have been around for hundreds of years and over that time their actions have evolved as people become less affected by what they see and hear. Their objective rarely shifts though and it is this which really should cause the fear.
Even in their deluded minds IS members probably do not imagine that they will be parading down the mall as part of the conquering army. If they are to bring down governments then they will do it be crippling the economy.
The bombing of the Russian airliner has already started a chain reaction which will see holiday resorts lose millions as tourists stay away for the time being. The attacks in Paris merely highlight to potential holidaymakers that they aren't safe anywhere and would be better of staying at home.
The full impact this will have on trade and currency is yet to be realised, however, the markets are already seeing the affect as stocks drop in value.
Meanwhile governments, already suffering from economic woes and looking to make cuts, are forced to expend more money than budgeted on increasing security, even though they know that this is mostly for perception rather than practical reasons.
Terrorism is a criminal rather than military action. To call then soldiers or declare war against them elevates them in people’s minds and increases the threat. They are murderers and thieves. If viewed as this then their impact starts to be diminished. Their effect on the economy minimised. It is only when we allow the fear they want to spread that they can harm us. Their greatest fear is that we unite, not just French and English, European and American but everyone, Syrian, Iraqi, Russian. We need to work together to create a strong global economy and remove their only hope of ever achieving close to their ambitions.

A free market economy

ECONOMICS could soon be facing its greatest shakeup since Adam Smith put pen to paper. Previous notions of supply and demand are being eroded as consumers shift their interests to an increasingly digital, and open source world.
Obviously this is just hyperbole to garner a reaction and we are not about to see the collapse of our entire economic system. What is likely though is that we are approaching a new phase in economic theory as consumers cease to meet a price equilibrium with suppliers.
This shift in consumer’s preferences has started to have a profound impact on the way in which companies think about business. For media outlets digital has created a far more diverse and expanded market than could ever have been considered for a solely print organisation. With this expansion of customer base comes an increase in competition.
People no longer view news as something to be mulled and reflected over. Whereas once today’s news was, at worst, tomorrow’s fish wrapper, it is now forgotten by next minute. Free news sites and the the explosion of citizen journalists on social media has overwhelmed the old guard. Each media group has looked to itself, and its readership, and modified their business models. Paywalls, direct marketing, dynamic and tailored advertising based on reading preferences, each has its own idea of what will work and time is yet to confirm which will be right.
Meanwhile the larger publishing industry faces competition from the rise of ebooks, and individuals ability to publish their own so quickly and easily. The internet is monetising people’s hobbies like never before and in so doing places an increased burden on pre-existing business models.
So what is the problem? Industries shift and change all the time. Technological advances have always been viewed with caution as naysayers warn of dire consequences for people’s jobs. In previous models though as technology created a shift in people’s spending and consumption habits it also created an expansion in the sale of substitutable goods.
Where the digital revolution differs from the industrial is in people’s perception that certain goods should be free. The rise of free downloads, news services, torrents and ebooks is likely to create an unsustainable pressure on the production of these goods.
In some cases the gaps in the market will be filled by people willing to supply their time for free. The issue therefore becomes one of quality in certain markets. For current economic thought it is the quantity of goods supplied which effects supply and demand. As more people flood the digital market, handing out services either free of charge,  or as is growing on a peer  to peer level removing the need for companies and by extension employees, it will become the quality of the goods supplied which will make the difference.
The traditional economic model may need to shift therefore but it is most certainly not broken. As people realise that they cannot obtain the standard they want from free and non-regulated goods and services they will start to move back towards paid for products. The digital revolution is upon us but it is a revolution and as such will  come back around. Adam Smith may be reassured that his invisible hand is still at work leading to what could be rising standards in the future and an improvement in socially desirable options later down the line.

Brexit would break Britain

THE main problem with the Eurosceptic campaigns is that Britain doesn't deal well with isolation.
Despite its resolute status as an island nation for most of its history the United Kingdom has been reliant on resources outside of its own borders. Culturally and economically it isn't geared towards going it alone.
There are unquestionably some areas of  Britain's membership of the European Union which could potentially do with a bit of a dust down and shake up but for the most part we are better off for our part in it.
The strangely cereal sounding "Brexit" as the tabloids have coined it is not the way though. For all the benefits, of which there are few, which may materialise shortly thereafter the long term damage would feasibly cripple the UK economy. Meanwhile any argument which could highlight the benefits of leaving will automatically be eclipsed by the economic issues surrounding both the in and out campaigns.
The rallying cry of the right "£55million spent daily on EU membership" may make a good Daily Mail headline but it misses a fundamental point of business, you have to spend money to make money.
First off the figure of £55million which has been quoted  by some of those pushing for Britain to jump out of the EU boat is a gross miscalculation of the data. This is primarily as it is taken from gross rather than net figures, which, based on 2012 statistics, placed the net daily contribution at £33million.
Even this figure is heavily skewed as it takes into account non-fiscal factors, or more simply it guesses at possible losses caused by such factors as the Common Agricultural Policy, lost jobs through free trade and labour movement with other EU states and additional costs from regulations.
On a household basis the cost of the EU paid by the government is actually knocked down to approximately  £20million per day.
At this point this amount then needs to be offset against the negotiated rebates Britain already has, roughly £8million, so the figure of £55million is now down to £12million. Even these figures, however, based as they are on EU spending and investment returns can be debated further when compared to United Kingdom Treasury figures, which are based on central government calculations and only factor in “official” government transactions rather than the money saved and spent by British households.
This amount could still be seen as too much by those who want to see an isolated Britain though, after all why spend £12million when you could be spending none and keep that money in your own treasury? Here in lies the crux of the matter the “off the books” money. The EU currently counts for approximately 45% of UK exports, based on 2015 figures. Meanwhile Britain relies on the favourable terms for trade it has with countries in the bloc to facilitate 53% of its annual imports, all of which will cost more following an exit from trade agreements.
Then there is the external trade factors. America, China, India et al have already expressed concern over a British exit. For all its former glory Britain isn’t seen as a key trading partner for non-EU countries because of what it once was. It is seen instead as a gateway to the rest of Europe. Preferential trade agreements are based on the idea that it will smooth the way for larger deals on mainland Europe. Brexit removes this impetus and will rapidly drive foreign direct investment out of the UK and elsewhere.
The long and short of it that leaving the EU may be a boon for some historic ideal of an solitary powerful Britain but it doesn’t face the facts of the current global economy. For Britain to survive it must integrate. Brexit would do nothing more than break Britain.

Who will pay for gun control

ON OCTOBER 1st America reached 1000 mass shootings in the three years since the Sandy Hook massacre, which left 20 young children dead.
The recent headline grabbing attack on a campus in Oregon was number 994, meaning there were a further six on the same day. It was the 294th mass shooting in America this year. Following the shootings, which left nine dead, not including the gunman, United States President Barack Obama gave yet another press conference calling for stricter gun controls.
It isn’t the first time he has made this plea though. The same call for action was made after Sandy Hook, Charleston, Fort Hood... In total President Obama has called for more regulations governing gun ownership fourteen times.
Why then is it that America still won’t give up its arms? One reason is the Republican right, which has viewed the right to carry arms as a constitutional matter and therefore something to be clung onto irrespective of rational arguments against. Perhaps the key case to be made against the second amendment, aside from its ambiguity concerning who can actually carry arms, is that it was written at a time when you had to take a tea break to reload between shots. Guns have moved forward and it is time that legislators came to terms with this.
If the Republican right really believed that handing out more guns would help prevent more deaths then they would only have to look at the statistics for mass shootings on military bases to see the flaw in the argument.
Politics is just the public face of the case against tighter gun control. It is the economics behind the politicians which are the real reason President Obama will inevitably have to give another press conference before his term of office is over.
In 2012 the National Rifle Association was reported as spending approximately  $15million on Republican political campaigns in an effort to thwart President Obama from regaining office. American Presidential campaigns have become known for their multimillion dollar war chests. The size of the NRA’s fiscal support for the pro-gun republicans gives a sense of the money involved though and the scale of the opposition President Obama is facing in his attempt to overhaul gun laws.
While the arms industry is notoriously hard to find exact figures on the Norwegian Initiative on Small Arms (NISA) estimates that American small arms purchases in 2009 accounted for 38% of global total of imports at $1.8billion, more than 47 other leading importers combined. Meanwhile figures given in 2010, relating to 2007, by the US Census Bureau estimate that domestic sales revenue for smalls arms sales could be $2,742 million per year, with a payroll for employees in America of $507million.
The money involved is vast and the interest groups powerful. It isn’t an unwinnable battle though. The government’s long running campaign against big tobacco, and its loosening of the corporation’s stranglehold on politics shows that it can be done. It won’t be through good intentions though and will require a shift in focus for the Republicans, among others. The American constitution has been amended and updated before as circumstances required. There is no longer the same need for armed citizens, forgoing the argument of enhancements to the guns they are carrying. The only thing holding back the debate is the question of who will pay the price, the coffers of the arm trade or the lives of the next victims?

May's speech ignores the facts of immigration

A RISING fear of the impact of migration is starting to give right wing politicians the opportunity they have been looking for to gain votes. Even politicians who had previously styled themselves as appealing to the middle ground have started to shift to an increasingly right wing, anti-immigration stance in an attempt to pander to the fears of the electorate.
On Tuesday British Home Secretary Theresa May demonstrated just how far she was prepared to go in her bid to become the next Conservative leader. Making up for a lack of facts with an over abundance of inflammatory remarks during her speech at the Conservative Party Conference Ms May showed that she is prepared to play to the right and drive a wedge through British society.
Instead of looking at the figures Ms May seemed intent on stereotyping immigrants as coming to Britain to steal jobs and be a burden on the public purse. It didn’t seem to matter to Ms May that this flew in the face of the information generated by a report from her own department which stated: “There is relatively little evidence that migration has caused statistically significant displacement of UK natives from the labour market in periods when the economy is strong.”
This use of refugees as scapegoats is not new, politicians have always looked to shift the blame and focus away from their own incompetence. It is however concerning that in a day and age where information is so prevalent and verifiable that such a senior figure within the British government can think that it is acceptable to mislead the electorate in such a blatant way. Perhaps more concerning is the knowledge that many people will listen and believe it.
Serious studies on the economic impact of immigration show that at worst it makes little to no difference in the structure of a society or its fiscal stability, at best it creates significant further employment opportunities, higher wages, long term growth and increased stability within the structure.
In many European countries an ageing population means that within the coming decades there are quite simply not enough people to do the jobs which need doing. This does not take into account the jobs being created by the influences of skilled migrant workers and the additional revenue to the treasury brought  in over time by through the earnings of new entrants in the labour market.
At its very simplest the migration creates an increase in supply and demand. Through more people entering demand for a good rises. To meet this demand supply needs to be increased and to do this you need people to create the good in the first place. The people doing this earn wages and using these they buy more goods, and so the cycle goes on.
While this is an incredibly simplified explanation, lacking in the nuanced details of economic modelling it is a demonstration of why Ms May is so wrong in her analysis of the situation. Meanwhile statements that immigration drives down wages goes against the figures demonstrating how even low skilled workers help drive up pay in numerous industries.
Immigration reduces the deficit through the increased number of taxes being paid, which in turn is used to prop up the public services Ms May seems so sure will disintegrate under the pressure. As for the argument that it "impossible to build a cohesive society” as Ms May so vilely asserts, that argument has been used before, It was used to argue against equal rights for women, it was used for why the slave trade could not be abolished, it has been used to defend every heinous and reprhensible act committed in the name of preserving the status quo.
Times change, cultures change, people change. Immigration won’t collapse our economy, destroy our culture or threaten our society. Immigration is what sustains these things. Immigration enables us to grow culturally and economically. It creates new opportunities for business and provides a basis for jobs in the future. In short it is the opposite of everything Ms May claims it to be.

Misery for entertainment

A RECENT tourist attraction in Britain has provided one of the most damning critiques of modern life you could ever hope for.
Dismaland was created, at least in part, by the guerilla artist, or vandal depending on your point of view, Banksy. The idea was to create a temporary artistic endeavour revelling in a dystopic version of a well known theme park. Even the four to five hour queues to get in have been suggested by some as part of the experience. One thing which seemed clear was that anyone trying to buy the tickets online were in for a depressing time as payment timed out before you could input details.
The more that people were told the exhibit was designed to be a miserable and depressing event the more they flocked to it.
The thing is that this fascination with misery for entertainment seems to have permeated throughout our entire social structure. The refugee crisis has become a reality show for some. People tuning in to wring their hands and preach while all the while detaching themselves from the reality of the situation.
It is one of the problems of a social media driven 24 hour news cycle. People are saturated by partial information and ever more explosive stories as news organisations fight for the crumbs to gain viewers. As part of this they have moved away from serious news and journalism to entertainment as they dumb down to capture the mindless masses. The viewing public have become the ultimate consumers of misery and human suffering demanding ever  more to satisfy their obscene appetites.
This same approach has encroached into politics, rarely the most pure of professions. As Donald Trump leads the pack to become the Republican party's Presidential nominee it has become clear that it is not because of his well defined policies or engaging personality.
Mr Trump is leading the way because he has tapped into the dissatisfaction of the masses. He has shifted blame to those who cannot defend themselves and away from those who may vote for him. It is a time honoured political approach which keeps working, and likewise being condemned afterwards when it inevitability increases feelings of hatred and bigotry.
While it would be great to hold Trump to account as the figurehead of the growing culture of misery entertainment he has not created it. It is something which had been rising slowly over the years and we haven't done anything to stop it. Instead we have all allowed ourselves to be dragged into its slurry of hate and recrimination.
The recent 75th anniversary of the Battle of Britain showed that this wasn't always the case. There was a time when people came together to fight back against what was wrong. A time when no matter how bad things were you focused on the possibilities, the solutions, you held onto hope and honour. A time when people valued bravery and courage, rather than condemning it as Mr Trump as done in various ways during his campaign.
The human race has not been built on hate or pain. Our humanity came about as we fought to tear these things down. We can no longer view the anguish of others as fuel for our insatiable need for misery. Instead it must stoke the fires of compassion and solidarity and drive us forward to a achieve so much more for the good of all.

Corbynmania is just madness

JEREMY Corbyn's election as the leader of the Labour Party has not come as a surprise to many political analysts. The signs have been there in the polling data, which unlike during the British general election actually appears to be accurate this time round.
Despite the expectations his election has not been roundly welcomed by MP's within his party. He has been accused of being too left wing, of failing to find compromise and of flip flopping on crucial policy areas. For many in his party he has destroyed their chances of regaining power. For his supporters however is landslide victory during the leadership election demonstates an ability to motivate disaffected voters and draw people to the party.
Only one side can ne right though and at the moment the facts seem to favour the pessimists. Mr Corbyn did appear on paper as having mobilised a previously uncounted portion of the electorate which took advantage of the £3 registration fee to sign up and throw their support behind the left winger. If the numbers are taken as a sign that those registered voters who didn't turn out for the last election will vote for Labour then it could mean a parliamentary win.
The reality of the situation is that the areas where Mr Corbyn is drawing non-voters back to the fold are in large part already Labour held. While the party may increase its majority in seats it already holds the drive to mobilise a new base is unlikely to help then win new regions.
The next phase of Mr Corbyn problems is his lack of ability to compromise. By placing the hard left MP John McDonnell, a self proclaimed "enemy of capitalism", in the position of Shadow Chancellor he will have made the chances of reconcilliation within his party that much harder.
Within days of being elected splits were already showing in the shadow cabinet. Shadow Foreign Secretary Hilary Benn pledging Labour's supporter for staying in the EU quickly undermined by Mr Corbyn's speech to the Trade Union Council for example shows a lack of cohesion on key policy matters.
Then there is Mr Corbyn himself. There is something praiseworthy in this day and age of plastic politics for someone to rise to the top on old fashioned principles. The problem is that the old fashioned principles may not be suited for the modern day. The time for Michael Foot's donkey jacket are long gone. People expect certain things from a party leader.
Most notably among these is at least a passing respect for the armed forces and monarchy, whether genuine or just out of professional courtesy. Mr Corbyn's failure to sing the national anthem or confirm that he will wear a red poppy rather than the white will have just as much of an impact on the electorate as his poorly thought through outdated policies.
For now Jeremy Corbyn remains a sideshow to the real running of the country but as he begins to fulfil his role as leader of the opposition he needs to start facing facts. The 1970's are long gone and we live in a different world.  No amount of wishful thinking will bring it back. If Labour are to have a hope for the future they must move with the times not backwards.

The economics show Britain should do more

Despite thousands of refugees dying over the last few months it has taken one heartbreaking picture of a dead child lying abandoned on a beach to make people care. The very same people who were claiming that we shouldn't do anything suddenly switched their views.
While the images of young Aylan Kurdi have prompted a outcry from people who really didn't have a clue when all they could see were statistics, the government's knee jerk response is both irresponsible and dangerous. The pitiful level which it has placed on the number of immigrants allowed into the country, 20,000 by 2020, will not even make a dent in the hundreds of thousands fleeing a war which we are at least partly accountable for. By prioritising certain refugees over others it is likely that families will be ripped apart as they try and save their children. Most importantly though by circumventing the rules for foreign aid and using it domestically to prop up councils the government is saving a penny now only to spend a pound further down the line. The foreign aid budget isn't an ego boost it is a necessary fund which should be used to combat refugee crises at the source and thereby mitigate against a future influx later down the line. Give a man a fish and he will feed himself today. Give him clean water, shelter, security, education and hope and he will feed his family for a lifetime as will his descendants.
That coin you gave to someone sleeping rough to make yourself feel good about how generous you are, this isn't like that. This isn't about handouts as so many on the far right seem to think. This is about building something.
On one side of the argument has been the claim that Britain cannot take anymore refugees. A strange belief that it will create further ghettosiation of specific regions, particularly around London and the South. This claim focuses only on a knee jerk Daily Mailesque reaction to the crisis which fails to accept the statistics and figures covering the crisis.
A well managed programme, such as that being implemented by Germany which accepted 18,000 refugees last weekend, sees family units kept together while also ensuring that no one area becomes saturated.
A carefully drawn up approach allows for thousands more refugees to be allowed into the country, more than that however it actually allows for, over time, a boon to the economy from money being brought in.
A common argument that even when refugees find employment they send money home fails to accept that every sensible study on the issue finds that the amount sent out of the country is minimal when compared to the amount which British citizens, as a whole, take out of the economic flow through savings. It also fails to take into account the fact that per person migrants tend to pay higher rents, money which landlords then put back into the economy. It doesn’t take account of the fact that they still buy food and clothes, in short they live and survive. This money circulates, and for the most part it comes from jobs which British citizens have refused to do, yet which are necessary and provide a foundation for better jobs for others.
As for the argument that migrants cost the government more money than the good hard working British public even a cursory glance at official figures shows how much greater the proportion of Brits living on welfare is compared to migrants, even where data is amended to take into account disparity of population proportion.
Even without this evidence there is one overwhelming fact, people are dying and dying in their thousands. The refugee crisis is no longer about nations and states it is about humanity. As humans it is our duty to help those who need it.

An immigrant by any other name is an expat

THE recent unrest at Calais, and the British government's response, has highlighted the knee jerk decisions politicians are being drawn to.
From the way in which the news portrays the current migrant issues on Britain's border you could quite easily be forgiven for thinking that a rerun of Agincourt was taking place. Images of valiant British longbow archers manning the walls of Castle Eurotunnel holding back the threat of invasion from the onrushing hoardes spring to mind.
Never mind the fact that the thousands of people trying to enter Britain are more likely to be starving, afraid and driven by a desperation to survive, rather than the image of savage criminals being pushed by the right wing.
Having spent some time living abroad my social media feeds are populated by a number of people who have chosen to head in the opposite direction and leave the country for sunnier climates. Fair play and good luck to all who try it.
What is interesting though is the number of people who having decided to leave the country, and in more than a couple of cases still quite happily recieving some form of payments from the British government, condemn the number of immigrants, documented and otherwise, who have chosen to enter it. This is aside from the downright racist attitudes of some to the country they have chosen to live in.
If you told many of these individuals that they were immigrants they would be horrified, and from experience come out with some quite colourful phrases. They are expatriates and proud of it. They are bringing skills and money which other countries must need because they aren't Britain. Obviously the aim of any country is to become a carbon copy of the UK to please those sunburned philanthropic souls who have chosen to head to the sun bringing with them civilisation, lager and beerguts.
The only difference between expats and immigrants is the direction which they are travelling.
Mass immigration is not feasible by any measure but blocking all immigration is likewise pointless. Expats entering the UK bring with them necessary skills and finances, by any genuine balanced measure people coming into the country generate more money for the treasury than they take out of it. They also do not "steal British jobs" they do the jobs which people in Britain aren't. As the old joke goes "If someone entering this country with no qualifications and unable to speak the language can steal your job you may want to seriously look at how badly you were doing it".
Fortunately for those gripped by a UKIPesque fear of immigration, you can normally spot them by the line "I'm not racist but...", the British government is on their side. Legislation to criminalise providing homes to undocumented expats and deporting people who have worked in the country for a set number of years will have the Daily Mail readers rubbing their hands together in glee, nevermind the fact that it will cripple public services such as the NHS and create an atmosphere of legalised discrimination against people who have jumped through the miriad of hoops to live in Britain.
I was mistaken before when I said there was only one difference between an expat and an inmigrant, it is also a state of mind. When terms such as "swarm" are used by the Prime Minister to describe human beings who have crossed thousands of miles, risked starvation and death via multiple means to seek a better life, when men, women and children are perceieved as vermin, when we see other people as somehow less deserving of dignity and respect than ourselves then it is a state of mind which needs changing.
There is no doubt that immigration needs to be managed but to create and atmosphere where one person is viewed as less deserving of the chance to survive than another is not the way.

A terrorist by any other name

IT HAS become apparent in recent weeks, if it wasn't already clear enough, that in the fight against international terrorism Turkey is caught between a rock and a hard place.
On one side there is the so called Islamic State (IS), known throughout the world as a terror group which has spread across Syria and Iraq with close ties to groups within Yemen, Nigeria and Somalia, where a terror attack on Sunday by one of its affiliates Al Shabaab destroyed one of the key hotels for journalists, diplomats and expats in the capital of Mogadishu.
On the other is Turkey's long running enemy the Kurdistan Worker's Party (PKK). Since 1984 the campaign for an independent state launched by the PKK has left approximately 40,000 dead, most recently with two Turkish police officers last week.
Where Turkey faces a serious issue however is how these two terrorist groups are perceived beyond its boundaries. Kurdish fighters in Iraq are proving to be the front line of combat operations against IS, while Turkey has repeatedly refused to commit ground forces to the battle. Many believe that the Kurds importance in the battle, and the support for their semi-autonomous state in Iraq, have given a renewed credence among international players to demands for an independent state in Turkey.
In response to this dual threat Turkey called a meeting of NATO allies to discuss operations to protect itself from further attacks.
Ankara may find support limited among its allies though. Accusations have already been levelled at the government for allegedly using airstrikes in Iraq as a cover for also attacking Kurdish units. Recent reports from the area have suggested that Turkish tanks may have deliberately fired across the border into Iraq targeting Kurdish units.
For many Western nations the threat from IS is an overwhelming fear and they are prepared to forge the dirtiest of alliances to combat it, while also keeping their hands as clean as possible by allowing any else to carry out ground offensives on their behalf.
With a startling lack of understanding about the harm which the PKK has caused to Turkey, and the threat it poses to the country's long term security, it seems likely that many NATO countries will prefer to obfuscate and leave Turkey trapped between two evils rather than risking a fighting ally.
Turkey's resistance, not completely unreasonably, to see a difference between two terror groups threatening its sovereignty may place it add odds with the self interests of states looking for an easy end to the IS conflict.

Another final countdown for Greece

AFTER months of wrangling, recriminations and negotiations Greece has being given its final deadline by Eurozone ministers to pay up or get out.
Following Sunday's referendum, which saw millions of Greeks flock to the polls to vote Oxi, or No, to austerity measures demanded by the Eurozone countries it was clear that the long awaited end was nigh. Tuesday's meeting of Eurozone ministers merely confirmed what the markets had already suspected.
Final deadlines for the Greek government have become something akin to a Rolling Stones farewell tour, we have seen them before and stopped believing the flyers. This time, however, it seems almost certain that the Greeks will have to make some drastic decisions or genuinely risk Grexit.
Following the failure in Tuesday of either side of this ongoing saga to reach a conclusion European Union President, and Prime Minister of Poland, Donald Tusk warned that unless Greek officials presented a genuine and workable proposal to stay in the euro by Friday morning it would face bancruptcy.
The deadline comes ahead of am emergency meeting of all EU leaders On Sunday to discuss the possibility of Greece's exit  from the Eurozone. While this exit may not necessarily mean leaving the EU Sunday's meeting shows how seriously its possible exit from the Eurozone is being seen by member states both in and out of the single currency and its potential for Europe as a whole.
A bankrupt country within the EU would pose a risk for the bloc as a whole,  not just the Eurozone. Greek history shows a country where financial insecurity rapidly turns to domestic insecurity. Riots against austerity measures precipitated the rise of Syriza, yet by the standards of Greece's own reasonably recent history these were mild issues compared to Military Juntas and dictatorships. For European Ministers on Sunday the question of a destabilising financial crisis on one of its members and what it will mean for the security of the bloc as a whole will be a real issue.
German Chancellor Angela Merkel has already made it clear that Greek debt will not be forgiven. As the holder of by far the largest single portion of Greek debt, both as a contributor to European bailouts and domestic loans, Germany may hold the balance of Greece's future. France, which holds the second largest portion, wants a solution, however President Hollande is unlikely to push against the formidable Mrs Merkel too hard on this issue if he feels that the stakes become too much.
A possibility may be for a restructuring of Greek debt alowing for a longer period of repayments at lower levels. The International Monetary Fund has pushed for this form of a solution, having already had its debts defaulted on however this seems to be more focused on the IMF desperately wanting any chance of recouping its losses than supporting Greece.
For now the sword of Damacles hangs perilously over Greece. The thread which holds it is the new Greek Finance Minister Euclid Tsakalotos. Already seen as more willing to negotiate than his predecessor and a safer hand on the economy Mr Tsakalotos' first week will be a trying one.

Time for the final Grexit

Grexit, Grisis, Great news for eurozone; whatever your want to call it the time for a decision on Greece's future is rapidly approaching.
At time of writing there are still some hopes that a deal can be struck, however, even these are slim. The concessions proposed by the Greek government may buy them some time with their creditors but it will only be  a stop gap measure and likely to anger their own electorate.
Having campaigned on a platform of standing up to the European Union, preserving pension rights and combating austerity Greek Prime Minister Alex Tsipras and his ruling Syriza party will find it uncomfortable to explain why they are now making such a dramatic U-turn. On Tuesday it looked questionable whether he would be able to get the support in parliament to follow through on any agreement which included a concession on pensions making the plans even more unrealistic.
While the  proposal to combat Greece's mounting  debt has been greeted with cautious approval by some, including EU President Jean-Claude Juncker, others, including head of the International Monetary Fund Christine Lagarde and European Central Bank President Mario Draghi, are not even this optimistic of a solution.
Greece is hedging its bets on the idea that other eurozone countries will see Grexit as too much of a risk and therefore so long as they put on a good show of trying to compromise they will they will get what they want. Even if a bailout is agreed upon this time though it will only be a temporary measure. Unless Greece dramatically cuts its spending, raises the retirement age and curbs its more excessive tendencies then this will be just one round of a never ending fiscal game between the eurozone nations.
The issue for Germany et al though is  that having shown that they will bend over backwards to keep Greece in the zone they will have lost a key bargaining chip and created an inevitability for any future negotiations.
At this stage it could prove to be a greater risk to actually keep Greece in the eurozone. What critics of this opinion are quick to point out is that the zone was created with the specific concept that once joined it could not be left. To allow for Grexit would therefore create a dilemma for the bloc as member nations face an uncertain future, with any member potentially leaving and avoiding its responsibilities should the going get tough, examples of Spain and Portugal are thrown around considerably with this argument.
Such future exits would undoubtedly be painful and costly for the zone in the short term. If the eurozone is to survive in any format however this will be its only chance. By reducing the number of nations the remaining members will be able to create a more secure sustainable regime likely to increase productivity.
It would also not necessarily mean to collapse of the financial systems of leaving countries and the subsequent decent into anarchy and autocracy which has been predicted. The outflow from a prosperous regenerated eurozone is likely to bleed into these countries through trade and treaties, which with their new found ability to manage their own capital and current accounts more effectively is likely to help boost economies over the long term.
On a practical level the argument that should countries be allowed to leave the eurozone it would create some form of mass exodus must surely if true, which is unlikely, prove a decisive reason why it should be allowed. An economic regime which everyone wants to leave by definition has been proven to have failed and should be discarded in favour of a more effective one.
Without a real threat of exit there is no genuine means by which eurozone members can force others to acquiescence. Any negotiations will therefore prove pointless with a predetermined policy of paying an inevitability. An exit will without any question be painful, the rebuilding costly and many would sufferin the short term  Failing to allow it though would be catastrophic in the long run with the long term effects precipating a global financial crash to make the last decade seem a minor inconvenience.

Leaving Europe is a bad breakup we don't need

The future of Europe is one of those great discussions where it doesn't appear to actually matter if someone knows what is going on for them to make a contribution.
This is a good thing otherwise I would obviously be unable to wrIte about it.
In recent weeks the call from Conservative MP's to leave the EU, or at least calling for such unacceptable changes to the treaty agreement that they leave little other choice, has grown to more than 100. The Conservatives' For Britain group has appeared in a ghastly parliamentary parody of a bad boyfriend deliberately making unreasonable demand in the hopes that his girlfriend will break up with him and leave him looking like the injured party.
At the time of writing British MP's are debating the European Union Referendum Bill, the legislation required for the much heralded in out referendum to take place in 2017. As forgone conclusions go this was a safe bet. Everyone knows that it will pass. There is just too much pressure for a referendum to take place for it not to. It isn't whether we have a referendum now which matters, it is how we vote in that referendum.
The EU is far from perfect and in many ways could do with significant reform. This won't happen just because Britain stamps it's feet and cries though. It won't happen quickly and it most certainly won't happen in one go. The eurosceptics pushing for a renegotiation of the UK membership, supported by a number of disgruntled failed cabinet ministers looking to put the boot in,  know this. If they don't then they have either deluded  themselves or they really should not be allowed close to the debate. They know that the EU cannot change just because Britain says so. Likewise it won't even consider changing when there is a chance that the UK could leave anyway. International politics is a game and relies on states playing it in order to maximise their own preferences and gains.
The question which should be being debated in parliament is what is in it for everyone else. If we were serious about requesting reforms which would ensure that we stayed in the EU then we should be looking at how other states perceive their positions and what the relative gains will be. At the moment Britain had offered nothing in return for getting everything it wants.
An additional issue, and one which seems to be lost on many eurosceptics, is that leaving the EU will diminish Britain's absolute gains on the international stage. At present the United States sees the UK as a gateway into dealing with the rest of Europe. With its exit Britain's special relationship will sour quickly. This is of course something which will please the more nationalistic elements of the debate and what they are hoping for. The problem is that as the UK loses a great deal of support from America's declining hegemony it will lose its importance on the international stage.
This split will lead to a loss of trade which on its own could have been absorbed. Combined with the loss of trade and resources from Europe however it will prove crippling. Trade with China, based in no small measure with an understanding of Britain's ties to the US and its access to the EU economy, will not take long to dry up.
Britain is no longer an empire and it seems that too many people have forgotten this. We live and work in a globalised networked society. An EU exit has only one possible outcome for the UK, economic isolation and collapse. Better the long crawl to reform than the short sprint to crisis.

So much for predictions

POLITICS is always likely to throw up some surprises, however, the twists and turns of the General Election would have confused the writers of Broadchurch.

For months the polls showed the same picture, well the ones which were published that is. The election was supposed to be too close to call. The Conservatives and Labour were running neck and neck, the Liberal Democrats would take a mauling, but only just enough to teach them a lesson, the United Kingdom Independence Party would become a key player and the Scottish National Party would rise from the ashes of the referendum to be a greater threat to the union than ever. Something was meant to happen with the Green Party but to be honest no-one was really paying that much attention.

The plan was set. The Tories would be forced to enter a second coalition with the Lib Dems, who having suffered at the hands of the electorate and able to manipulate the threat of an SNP/Labour opposition would be firmer and stand by their principles. It was meant to be a coalition which would see the growing far right of the Conservative party mitigated by the left of the Libs. Nick Clegg would step down and Vince Cable or Danny Alexander would step to the fore.

Of course there was a risk of a Labour/SNP coalition but it was unlikely, particularly after the categorical statements of Ed Milliband. Clearly the main threat was just fear mongering on the part of the Conservatives in what turned out to be an incredibly divisive move who has put the Union at greater risk than the SNP ever could have.

Of course Labour and Conservatives both claimed that they would win a majority but no-one really took them seriously, queue much eye rolling from Dimbleby, Robinson, Marr et al whenever they said it. 

Well that was the plan. There was however one slight flaw, no-one followed it. From the minute Big Ben struck 10 it was obvious something had gone drastically wrong, possibly not entirely obvious to former Lib Dem Leaders Paddy Ashdown comment that he would eat his hat if his party lost 47 seats, as it was they lost 49. Political commentators who had been gearing themselves up for days, possibly weeks, of coalition negotiations now faced the prospect that the Conservatives may do far better than expected, and that the Lib Dems and Labour would do far far worse. As the night wore on and it became clear that there would be a Tory majority government without the restraint of the Liberals people started to realise what a hideous mistake they had made. 

By the morning people woke up to a new, far righter wing, Britain. Big names had fallen, Cable, Balls and many more had been thrown unceremoniously out on their ears. Liberal Democrat leader Nick Clegg and Labour chief Ed Milliband both stood down in the wake of the results, as did technically UKIP leader Nigel Farage only to spring back a few days later into the role. The Scottish National Party had swept Labour from Scotland to become the official third party. 

Simply put the political map of Britain changed and not necessarily for the better. It wasn't all bad though. The turn out was far higher than expected which just goes to show that the one safe bet I made on the election was just as wrong as every other prediction.    

Money talks, politicians lie

AS THE General Election campaigns continue to roll on in Britain it is become clear that politicians are willing to forgo economic sense in favour of votes.

Even the simplest concept, don't spend money you don't have, seems to have been forgotten as the number of unfunded manifesto pledges increases.

It is common knowledge that manifestos are wish lists which should be viewed with a sceptical lense. This doesn't mean however that parties can put anything in them in the hope that no-one notices that it is fiscally irresponsible.

Governments do have the option to borrow if necessary to fund policies if they feel it is worth increasing the national debt to push them through, so perhaps it is unfair to write off policies which appear unsustainable at this point.

What is most worrying is the way in which policies appear so focused on grabbing votes that they have ignored the potential long term harm that they will cause. Possibly the most noticeable of these is the minimum wage. For many people seeing that a party is prepared to offer a £10 minimum wage sounds like a winning idea, after all who doesn't like the idea of more money in their pocket. The problem is that it won't actually mean more money for individuals. 

Firstly many small businesses already struggle with minimum wages as it is. An increase, particularly such a dramatic one, does not mean the companies sales will increase so income is unlikely to change immediately. This means that to pay the new wage the business needs to increase prices, or lay off staff. 

Where prices stay static, lack of willingness by customers to pay increased prices for example, then unemployment will rise. As unemployment rises there are less people willing to pay increased prices, and so the cycle goes on. The argument that minimum wages should meet cost of living is likewise limiting the scope. If minimum wages are increased then people earning above the minimum wage, quite logically, will want an increase in pay, after all why work in one job if you can earn the same money doing something which requires less skill or stress. As these wages increase the cycle begins again driving up prices as larger and larger firms raise prices to meet the new wage costs and maintain profit margins.

Then there is the toxic issue of the foreign age budget. One party in particular seems to determined to develop the argument of "why are we giving money to foreigners?"  The simple answer is that you spend money to make money.

No matter how it is wrapped up and packaged foreign aid is aimed at stabilising the international system, allowing for development, and gradually through many steps leading to a flowing import export market. It is not a purely philanthropic matter no matter what some people may think. Quite simply the foreign aid budget brings more money into the country than goes out, it just does it in a roundabout and not always clear manner.

When parties try and explain how they are going to fund a policy they think only of the short five year effects on the treasury. The danger is that they forget that in a market economy the knock on effect for inflows and outflows will linger for many more years than this.

A developing issue of aid

The critical condition in Vanuatu once again has brought the issue of aid to the forefront of the global consciousness and with it the same old problems.

While the devastation reeked upon the country by Cyclone Pam has destroyed what little infrastructure the country, considered as one of the poorest in the world, it seems unlikely that the international community will do much more than symbolic handwringing.

Based on the economics principle of game theory to maximise stability in the international system it is better if all countries invest. If only one country invests then stability does increase slightly, although not as much as the accumulated investment of all. For an individual state therefore it makes sense not to invest as stability will still be increased. The issue arises however that if all states decide to not invest, thinking that the others will, then the level of instability will remain in the international system, and potentially in the face of such an emergency as in Vanuatu increase.

The barrier to effective aid therefore is that states will act in their own interests if they believe that another state will shoulder the burden, essentially free riding.

Over repeated games however if all states invest then it may occur to each state to decide that as stability will be increased whether or not they invest it makes sense for them to stop donating development aid and invest that money elsewhere. As each state only has the same information though this would logically lead to all  states stopping investment.

For a positive distribution of development aid to be determined using game theory players must be playing a coordination game, whereby they cooperate with each other while still potentially receiving different payoffs. When players in a coordination game have reached a mutually agreeable decision they will gain nothing by defecting from it. For the purposes of development and aid programmes this could mean that despite disagreement in putting together a proposal once it has been agreed upon all players will either remain with it or leave it all together. This has been seen in the way states have continue working towards achieving the Millennium Development Goals despite initial differences of opinion when they were being created.

An alternative form of game however can see individual states defecting from an agreement if they feel that they can increase their gains. Such a game may reduce the trust among other actors however and therefore make future long term cooperation harder. If all players in a game know that any of them may leave an agreement at any point if it benefits them then it can reduce the legitimacy of the agreement as a whole. This distrust amongst actors will prove a lasting barrier to global governance.

Vanuatu's problem, aside from the near whole scale destruction of its economy, is that it does not pose enough of a risk through instability to be of concern to much of the international community. It is unlikely therefore that there will be a coordinated effort among donor countries to provide a concerted and long term approach to development aid. The issue is instability is not strong enough to create an atmosphere of global governance, as few countries will feel their own interests are threatened by an destabilised Vanuatu. It would seem likely that it's richer neighbour Australia, fearing perhaps an influx of refugees among others, will be the only country to see the need to help, and even then it will only be through preservation of its own self interest.  

Language of terrorism is Schrödinger's Cat of security

THE announcement by the Nigerian terror group Boko Haram that is has aligned itself with the self proclaimed Islamic State has led to dire warnings by experts but how seriously should we take it?

The announcement, as with most issues surrounding terrorism, is a speech act with little impact other than that which we bestow upon it. Until Boko Haram made the announcement it may or may not have been allied to IS, it took a public statement for it to happen. A speech act is the Schrödinger's cat of securitisation, it may be both or neither until it is spoken at which point it becomes a reality.

This works both ways. For Boko Haram they can now claim allegiance to a vast terror network. The reality of the situation is that it will make very little difference though. In the 70's and 80's groups such as the Irish Republican Army were suspected of training in Libya and allegedly supplied weapons by the then Soviet Union. The IRA didn't need to pledge allegiance to Gaddafi to gain support they just had to have mutually beneficial aims. The same is true for Boko Haram and IS. Neither side needed to pledge allegiance to the other. They both are drawn from the same pool and are already likely to have been providing support where applicable.

The news has however given those on the right of the political spectrum a field day in spreading their own element of fear for their own ends.

 “By Boko Haram pledging to the Islamic State, Shekau has secured a safe haven for Boko Haram's leadership. Even if the current Nigerian offensives are to succeed, a temporary escape could be made to another IS stronghold from where Boko Haram's life cycle can be maintained irrespective of distance,” claimed Veryan Khan, editorial director of Terrorism Research & Analysis Consortium (TRAC), speaking to the American right wing Fox network.

Here lies an example of how a speech act can be used to promote what is known as securitisation, the concept that something is a security issue. The pledge doesn't in itself give IS or Boko Haram a foothold in the other's territory. By changing the perspective of the situation however this is what Khan has managed to allow without IS even having to accept it. Terrorism is about ideology, twisted as it may be, ideology is spread by words, the violence is just there to back them up. These words have very little power in and of themselves until they are given credence. 

By using particular language those who claim to be fighting the idea of terrorism are able to achieve their own ends and launch further military actions, as was seen by the disastrous intervention in Iraq, which rather than stabilising the Middle East directly led to a rise in Islamic fundamentalism. 

Likewise Boko Haram is no more likely today then it was last month to work with IS. Now they have said that they will, rather than doing so anyway, they have created a security issue which was already alive it was just still in its box.

The madness of nuclear non proliferation

ISRAELI Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu's speech to US congress this week and American President Barack Obama's announcement of a landmark deal with Iran have reawakened old animosities, and questions.

The issue here isn't whether or not Iran has nuclear weapons, we know they don't and we know that no matter what the rhetoric spouted is they are unlikely to do so in the near future. The issue is the hypocrisy within the international system regarding the acquisition and maintenance of nuclear weapons in general.

The five permanent members of the Security Council America, Russia, France Britain and China are all signatories to the treaty on the Non-proliferation of Nuclear Weapons (NPT), as is Iran for that matter. Israel, which has an outstanding if not just a little bit redundant policy of "deliberate ambiguity", is not. Neither are Pakistan and India, two other nuclear states, or North Korea which withdrew from the treaty, essentially showing how pointless the whole thing is.

The five original nuclear powers have long maintained an argument that they should be the only ones entrusted to possessing nuclear weapons as they are the only ones which can be trusted to maintain peace in the international system. The fact that the U.S. is the only country to have used nuclear weapons in an aggressive act seems lost on the current policy makers.

Iran voluntarily signed up to the NPT without any actual need to do so, and has remained with it despite an inability among other signatories to do so. Meanwhile Iran's greatest opponent, Israel, is known to have nuclear weapons and refuses to sign the NPT, they also refuse to allow independent inspection of non military nuclear facilities however that is an entirely different issue. Unlike the renowned realist academic Kenneth Waltz I do not believe that Iran getting a nuclear weapon would increase the stability of the Middle East, an argument being that it will create an element of mutually assured destruction, MAD, the same principle argued between Russia and the West during the Cold War. The fact is though that if stability is to be maintained within the international system there must be an equality of action and reaction between states, e.g. Israel cannot complain about one party developing nuclear weapons outside of international oversight when they are doing the exact same thing. 

In the cases of Iran et al there is an additional issue of 'dual use' technology, the ability for a crossover of non-military nuclear applications, such as power generation. Germany, Japan and South Korea all have the capability from their nuclear energy industry to start a nuclear weapons program, they are known as 'recessed nuclear weapons states'. If we are to argue that Iran should not be allowed any nuclear capacity then does this mean that we are going to force these countries to dismantle their power stations? 

A nuclear free world is a lovely idea but it won't happen. The genie is well and truly out of that bottle and no amount of good intention will shove it back in. The only alternative is to find a common ground. Global governance of the nuclear sector is a possible course, however, so long as countries such as Israel continue to develop nuclear weapons as refuse to acknowledge it this will not happen. At the end of the day only one thing can be done, treat each state equally, allow for trust within the system and pray that each state understands the consequences of its actions. Mutually assured destruction may be MAD but it is the only way to peace we have.    

The role of "cyber" in the international system

IN AN ever increasingly connected world the role of "cyber" has taken on a new level of importance. Its place, and by extension its function in society has, however, become something of a debate in its own right.

For the purposes here we can distinguish between online and cyber. We are not talking about buying things or streaming movies. We are instead looking at the connectivity which "cyber" has provided in the arena of global governance and whether this has removed or created boundaries.

While it may have an effect on the debate it is also unnecessary here to discuss the concerns raised by some experts in the field, including "father of the Internet" Vint Cerf, that changing technologies may lead to the loss of vast stores of data and information, other than to say that if this were to happen its impact on global information distribution, and particularly its importance in the promotion of emerging economies, may have long term unforeseen implications. Such a loss, and with it the associated loss of production possibility and sustainability for developing countries, would likely cause severe between country instability and destabilise portions of the international system. 

Before this becomes a global doomsday prophecy it is worth clarifying that such an impact would likely be mitigated by the gradual nature of the information loss and the ability of states and large multinationals to update their technologies gradually thereby mitigating such loss.

We are brought back therefore to "cyber" as an increased form of connectivity and what impact this can have on the international system.

There are those who view the increased communications abilities provided as a risk to global security and the international system as a whole. For some states the risks have been judged as too high and as such they have attempted to impose stringent controls on their populaces ability to access such resources. A similar debate occurred however when the printing press was first used and when Gutenburg's bible was produced. The debate now will end in the same outcome, as has already been demonstrated by the means by which some activists have circumvented government controls to spread information via social networking sites and the "dark web".

For network theorists the enhanced role of "cyber" has provided a way for "bottom up" change to take place as transnational advocacy networks can communicate more effectively and thereby put increased pressure on states to take action on a range of topics.

This same mechanism however has also given criminal entities and terror networks the same advantage leading to a spread of ideologies and increased ability for global recruitment. No longer is Walter Lacquer's view of terror groups as small, contained entities, viable in the new "cyber" world.

The impact of TANs is, by their very nature, limited by the will of the states they are attempting to change. For those using "cyber" to destabilise civil society they are equally limited by the ways in which states will respond, as seen by removal of internet capabilities.

"Cyber" therefore means as much now as the printing press did then. It is a tool which has not yet seen its potential. That potential however is limited by the will of the international system, which despite the best wishes of the network theorists is still ruled by the sovereignty of states and a realist perspective. 

The West must shoulder blame for Ukraine

IF the current crisis in Ukraine demonstrates anything it is that the Cold War far from thawing has entered a new phase.

Rather like some prehistoric monster from a bad B movie it appears that the Cold War has been in a state of deep freeze just waiting for the right climate to appear for it to make its grand resurgence.

Ukraine has provided just such a catalyst. The old rivalries between two dominant forces are reawakened. There is a misconception however that the growls from the aged Soviet bear are the cause of all today's ills. In international politics it still takes two to tango and the West must foot its fair share of the blame.

As the doyen of international relations John Mearsheimer stated: "The   United States and its European allies share most of the responsibility for the crisis. The taproot of the trouble is NATO enlargement, the central element of a larger strategy to move Ukraine out of Russia’s orbit and integrate it into the West." (Mearsheimer, 2014)

The United States logically wants to maintain its position as the only hegemon in the global debate, China may be approaching this state but has not yet achieved the same level of cultural or political dominance. 

For Vladimir Putin this poses a direct threat to the sovereign interests of Russia. A Ukraine without Russian ties would pose a problem for him, by, as Mearsheimer points out, giving the West a strong staging point right on his border. 

Imagine for a second that Scotland had voted for independence and England refused to allow it. Would the West defend China if they interceded on Scotland's behalf? It may sound particularly far fetched yet in rational terms the situation is not that much different than the one currently facing Ukraine and its surrounding areas.

Of course with Ukraine however there are far deeper veins to plum for information on the cause and effect of the situation. In historical terms it would be more akin to France throwing its support behind an independent Scotland against the English.

There is plenty of evidence to suggest that Russia is arming rebels, a useful but not entirely fair term. So long as it doesn't become explicit however it must be seen as part of the great game. Suggestions that the West could overtly arm Ukrainian forces is a dangerous idea. While support is restrained to words and sanctions, with armed support kept to the shadows, there is a possibility for both sides to walk this back. 

If either side admits openly to supplying military assistance though it will force the situation into a whole new phase. The crisis in Ukraine may be devastating but an escalation would be catastrophic and the West would well and truly have the blood on its hands.

The enemy of my enemy

BRITISH Prime Minister David Cameron drew ire this week after daring to suggest that his responsibility to the UK outweighed his views of Saudia Arabian human rights issues.

The simple fact is that ethics do not come into the relations between states in the international system. The concept of human rights abuses, which in and of itself is a matter for contention in the face of different legal systems and philosophies, is only a matter of debate for state leaders if they lead to fundamental instability within the country which can destabilise the international system. 

This doesn't make it right, it doesn't act as justification, it does mean that larger interests and the security of international States can be maintained. 

This is not to say that human rights abuses should be ignored. They must, however, be placed in context of the norms governing the situations. Transnational advocacy networks, groups such as Amnesty International and the Red Cross, humanitarian agencies and even international organisations, such as the United Nations, have a clear responsibility to address these issues, while also placing them in the context of the cultural and legal positions within the states themselves.

It is clear though that Mr Cameron's primary responsibility is to the United Kingdom, preserving its security, maintaining its position in the international system and, where appropriate, increasing its global power position. It would be wrong to assume that he should risk the safety of his own state to condemn the legal system in another. 

This however is what his critics currently want. In his defence Mr Cameron was reported as saying: "I can tell you one time since I've been prime minister, a piece of information that we have been given by that country has saved potentially hundreds of lives here in Britain.

"Now, you can be prime minister and say exactly what you think about every regime in the world and make great headlines, and give great speeches.

"But I think my first job is to try and keep this country safe from terrorism and if that means you have to build strong relationships sometimes with regimes you don't always agree with, that I think is part of the job and that is the way I do it. And that is the best way I can explain it."

If we were to condemn all our allies for failing to uphold the ideal of humanitarian values we would expose ourselves to not only the same scrutiny and condemnation but also to an increase in threats against us. 

Our ability to protect the citizens of the United Kingdom would be irreparably damaged if we were to base our foreign policy decisions purely on ethics and morals rather than logic and reason. Our key ally America would be the first we would have to distance ourselves from and with it Israel, Jordan et al. 

International relations is not a kind game. It is not about only playing with the nice kids. It is about taking the action needed to preserve the power and security of the state. It is for this reason that organisations such as Amnesty International are so important. When states cannot act others must be able to.

It's a crisis but not like you think

THE victory of the Syriza party in Greece has led to media reports making it sound as though we are on track for a Mad Max distopia.

In the short term the support for the anti-austerity platform it campaigned on has already seen fluctuations in the money markets. This is only to be expected though. The thought that the eurozone may be forced to write off €240bn is not a pleasant one, least of all for Germany which has the most to lose.

Statements by newly elected representatives of the party that the debt is unrealistic and should be wiped fail to explain why the country a) needed the loan in the first place and b) why it was issued if it could not be repaid. 

The easy answers are that accumulated mismanagement of fiscal policies led to Greece's collapse and that the debt can be repaid but only through lengthy and painful austerity measures. 

Euclid Tsakalotos', Syriza's economic spokesman, declaration that "nobody believes that the Greek debt is sustainable,"  failed to add the addendum which will have gone through the minds of European Central Bank policy makers. It is only unsustainable if Greece does not radically change its attitude to spending.

A comparison can be drawn by an individual maxing out credit cards, overdrafts and getting into arrears in the mortgage. While they may not be able to pay off the full amount in one go they can look at restructuring the debt, cutting back expenses and paying it off gradually. If they decide not to do this and take out more debt to buy a new television and computers for the kids then the debt is going to be unsustainable.

The key difference, other than the obvious size of the debt, is that it is harder to repossess the Parthenon than somebody's car.

Mr Tsakalotos seems to have forgotten that the €240bn was a loan, not a handout. While he may be correct in thinking that economists would agree that the debt is unsustainable it is only this way because Greek authorities have allowed it to become so.

His belief that the rest of the Eurozone will cave in the face of economic uncertainty, rather than risk a possible, albeit unlikely, exit from the bloc, is a very large gamble to take. Germany has already signalled that it is likely to call Greece's bluff. 

This could be disastrous in the short term as the euro suffers but it would not necessarily mean the end of the eurozone though. In a very simplistic explanation as the euro devalues it will make it cheaper for countries, such as America and the UK, to buy products from the member countries. This in turn increases the amount of foreign capital entering the country and thus begins the long road back to stability and prosperity. The fundamental issue is whether the bloc has sufficient resources to prop itself up in the meantime.

This may well be a risk worth taking though as one of the alternatives is that Syriza gets exactly what it wants. This in turn would provide a boost to other anti-austerity and anti-EU parties, a risky business for the long term survival of the European Union as a whole not just the euro.