When I was a young child I thought it a bit peculiar that the school year started in September, while the calendar year—which I considered to be the year proper—began on January 1st. Surely the school year should coincide with the calendar year?
This confusion was originally made all the worse when I was told by my teachers at cheder (Jewish studies classes held after-school in another place) that there were four new years: the Jewish calendar new year of Rosh Hashana (typically in September of October), a Jewish "new year" for trees (Tu b'Shvat, around February or so), the birthday of the Universe (1st Nissan, sometime in Spring), and the secular or calendar new year. But with a year or so of thought it made sense that the school year coincided with the Jewish new year.
This year the Jewish new year is quite late on the secular calendar, the last week in September. Yet next week my University starts back, and my youngest daughter begins are her new secondary school. My son, who is a little older, starts back the following Monday. And so, as this week ends a new school year is about to start, some two weeks after the start of the English Premier League! Summer—which has never really made much of an appearance in London—is now officially over: the new year is starting with a vengeance.
Under normal circumstances going back to work or school after Summer is something of a two-edged sword. On the downside there is the prospect of obligations being enforced, while the upside is a chance to renew friendships and start over with something approaching a clean slate. As a schoolboy, I used to pledge not to deface my textbooks each new school year, a pledge that I was never able to keep (I still possess most of my school books!). As an adult who is a University lecturer, I usually approach each new year with renewed vigour and energy. I am usually excited and energised at the prospect of meeting a new group of students and, in some cases, becoming reacquainted with students with whom I already have an established relationship. However, for personal reasons this has been a dire Summer, full of traumas and disappointments—the least of these being the poor weather—so I am less motivated than is normally the case as we rush headlong towards September.
It would be an exaggeration to say that I am indifferent to the start of the new academic year, and I remain hopeful that reconnecting with colleagues and students will invigorate me. I hope that Spurs' early season performances will have a similar impact (although the 3-0 loss to ManU had the reverse effect). And despite my personal circumstances the world itself has given us plenty to talk about this Summer: as well as the "Arab Spring" and the continuing battles for democracy in the Arab world, there is the ongoing financial "crisis" and the continued prospect of a double dip recession. And with today's news that Steve Jobs no longer feels his health permits his continued full-time efforts at Apple, the world continues to astound and amaze, surprise and delight, and confound and confuse, all in equal measure.
Whatever, your role, your job, your circumstances, I hope we all enjoy the new start that comes with a new year, and the end of Summer is always a new year!
Thursday, August 25, 2011
Tuesday, July 26, 2011
American angst
The debt problems currently plaguing the US government are showing that country's politicians at their angst-ridden and undignified worst. The world's largest democracy, and one which holds itself up as a model for other countries, is proving to be less than worthy. Were it possible it would be an invitation to bring many high-profile US politicians to account for bringing democracy into disrepute.
The cause of this undignified mess is, of course, the debt problems facing the Federal government. Unseemly arguments between the President, the Senate and the House of Representatives are doing little to deal with this financial time-bomb, likely to go off before the week is out. If ever there was a time to put partisan politics to one side and do right by the ordinary people the politicians are supposed to represent, this is it. However, US politics is not driven by rights and wrongs, but by fierce brand loyalty down the generations to one party or another. On that score we could perhaps blame the electorate: in a democracy you get the politicians you deserve! However, one would hope that politicians would show some evidence of leadership, to go beyond simple representation of the citizenship. A forlorn hope indeed.
So what is the cause of this political in-fighting? In simple terms the US Federal government has borrowed beyond its means. For ordinary people, firms, and smaller countries, borrowing beyond one's ability to repay can be fatal, both financially and otherwise. However, as the late J Paul Getty once noted, "If you owe the bank $100 that's your problem. If you owe the bank $100 million, that's the bank's problem." The US Federal government debt is of the order of $14 trillion. Whether or not that is a large amount is entirely dependent on the ability of the borrower to repay.
It is often the case that the amounts borrowed during "good" times are apparently easily serviceable. However, the problem arises when the times are no longer "good", and it becomes more difficult to repay the interest, let alone any capital repayments. This is something which has affected almost every government on the planet, most noticeably Greece and Eire. Now it is the turn of the US to deal with what is seemingly a no-longer serviceable debt. And the politicians are unable to agree on the details of how best to deal with the situation. The simple solutions amount to a few elements: (1) reduce government spending making more funds available to reduce the burden of debt over the next few years; (2) increase the taxation levels to help fund the debt; (3) some combination of both. The Republicans favour 1, the Democrats 2, and the President is arguing for 3. The closeness of the deadline suggest that only 3 will serve, yet the two main parties continue to quibble over the details. It is the modern equivalent of fiddling while Rome (in this case Washington DC) burns.
If Greece defaulted on its debt then it would find it more difficult to borrow in future. It would be regarded as a risky proposition. Its bond ratings would plummet, leading to higher interest rates on any future loans it might be able to organise. Modern history has shown this with Mexico and Argentina. However, the USA is on a different scale. Any default could be seen as possibly temporary—the result of the immaturity of bickering US politicians—or it could be seen as much more dangerous. A default by the US Federal government could lead to an implosion of the world's financial markets. The collapse which was narrowly avoided when Lehman Brothers went bankrupt could once again become a reality, a reality which no rational person wishes to contemplate. Financial economists refer to this as systemic risk: the possibility of the collapse of the financial system. For ordinary people it means the end of the world as we know it. No credit, a failed banking system, markets which seize up, etc etc.
All we can do is hope the US politicians will come to their sense before the eleventh hour. Only time will tell if sense will prevail, or if we really do stand on the edge of a financial precipice.
The cause of this undignified mess is, of course, the debt problems facing the Federal government. Unseemly arguments between the President, the Senate and the House of Representatives are doing little to deal with this financial time-bomb, likely to go off before the week is out. If ever there was a time to put partisan politics to one side and do right by the ordinary people the politicians are supposed to represent, this is it. However, US politics is not driven by rights and wrongs, but by fierce brand loyalty down the generations to one party or another. On that score we could perhaps blame the electorate: in a democracy you get the politicians you deserve! However, one would hope that politicians would show some evidence of leadership, to go beyond simple representation of the citizenship. A forlorn hope indeed.
So what is the cause of this political in-fighting? In simple terms the US Federal government has borrowed beyond its means. For ordinary people, firms, and smaller countries, borrowing beyond one's ability to repay can be fatal, both financially and otherwise. However, as the late J Paul Getty once noted, "If you owe the bank $100 that's your problem. If you owe the bank $100 million, that's the bank's problem." The US Federal government debt is of the order of $14 trillion. Whether or not that is a large amount is entirely dependent on the ability of the borrower to repay.
It is often the case that the amounts borrowed during "good" times are apparently easily serviceable. However, the problem arises when the times are no longer "good", and it becomes more difficult to repay the interest, let alone any capital repayments. This is something which has affected almost every government on the planet, most noticeably Greece and Eire. Now it is the turn of the US to deal with what is seemingly a no-longer serviceable debt. And the politicians are unable to agree on the details of how best to deal with the situation. The simple solutions amount to a few elements: (1) reduce government spending making more funds available to reduce the burden of debt over the next few years; (2) increase the taxation levels to help fund the debt; (3) some combination of both. The Republicans favour 1, the Democrats 2, and the President is arguing for 3. The closeness of the deadline suggest that only 3 will serve, yet the two main parties continue to quibble over the details. It is the modern equivalent of fiddling while Rome (in this case Washington DC) burns.
If Greece defaulted on its debt then it would find it more difficult to borrow in future. It would be regarded as a risky proposition. Its bond ratings would plummet, leading to higher interest rates on any future loans it might be able to organise. Modern history has shown this with Mexico and Argentina. However, the USA is on a different scale. Any default could be seen as possibly temporary—the result of the immaturity of bickering US politicians—or it could be seen as much more dangerous. A default by the US Federal government could lead to an implosion of the world's financial markets. The collapse which was narrowly avoided when Lehman Brothers went bankrupt could once again become a reality, a reality which no rational person wishes to contemplate. Financial economists refer to this as systemic risk: the possibility of the collapse of the financial system. For ordinary people it means the end of the world as we know it. No credit, a failed banking system, markets which seize up, etc etc.
All we can do is hope the US politicians will come to their sense before the eleventh hour. Only time will tell if sense will prevail, or if we really do stand on the edge of a financial precipice.
Monday, July 11, 2011
Summertime blues?
Summer in England is inconstant. One day the weather will be warm and sunny, the next cool and rainy. In fact, replace "one day" with "one hour" and the same applies. The predictable thing about the weather in England is its unpredictability. For some this is a cause for complaint; for others, myself included, it is one of the key attractions of living in a temperate climate on one of a series of islands off the north-east coast of continental Europe.
Now matter how unpredictable the weather in England, it is virtually guaranteed to remain within given limits. The possibility of snow is zero, although there can be the occasional day or two of tropical heat. It is this limited range of possibilities which makes the unpredictability attractive.
The same can also be said for English politics. In many ways it is even more predictable than the weather. I would argue that this is characteristic of a modern, stable democracy. There is no chance of an English version of the Arab Spring. The same is true of most of England's national neighbours. The main source of volatility is from second-generation migrants who are torn between their cultural roots and the culture of their adopted homeland. Experience shows that by the third generation most incoming families have become assimilated, even when they maintain connections to their roots. After all, isn't the stability why such migrant families moved in the first place?
Even where finance and the economy is concerned, there is a limited range of unpredictable volatility. For the individual or individual family the volatility may seem much more of a concern, although even then it is typically a relatively short time before they return to a more acceptable state of affairs than exist during an economic downturn (I speak from experience).
For those living in less developed countries the situation is much more parlous. The Horn of Africa is one location where unpredictability is also within a limited range, but the norm within that range is less than attractive. Famine due to severe weather conditions is much more commonplace than anyone with a conscience would regard as acceptable. When accompanied by war, or internal conflict, the situation on the ground is exacerbated for ordinary families. Warlords and others will accumulate whatever produce exists, making the famine all the worse by excluding most people from access to it.
Such a situation is now current in eastern Africa. Twice we have seen Bob Geldof and others run global charity concerts (Live Aid in 1985 and Live 8 in 2005) to raise funds to stem the tide of poverty in Africa and elsewhere. Despite these huge and laudable efforts, the problems remain. They would appear to be inevitable. Despite the fund-raising and the intellectual efforts of Development Economists, and the goodwill of well-meaning politicians, people continue to die from starvation in Africa. This does not mean that the world should shrug its shoulders and do nothing, or turn a blind eye; rather we need to look at this problem from a different, more radical perspective. That requires some other things which are also afflicted by famine: (i) the will to succeed, (ii) the acceptance of radical, entrepreneurial ideas.
However, the world is a cautious, conservative place, with people everywhere afraid to embrace new ideas and suggestions. Some people, as we have seen, are so fundamental in their beliefs that they would prefer to main and kill rather than even hear new ideas which might possibly come into conflict with their own. To bow to these pressures—the inertia of the status quoⓒ—is to accept what currently is; a form of surrender, which is inimical to human progress. New ideas need to be granted a full hearing, especially where problems exist which have seemed to be intractable for a ling time. Those who decry such inventiveness are themselves modern Luddites who would be happy to see us return to a contemporary dark age. Such people are easy to spot: their favourite word is no; their inability to listen to or make persuasive argument is their obvious characteristic. Such people give me the blues.
Now matter how unpredictable the weather in England, it is virtually guaranteed to remain within given limits. The possibility of snow is zero, although there can be the occasional day or two of tropical heat. It is this limited range of possibilities which makes the unpredictability attractive.
The same can also be said for English politics. In many ways it is even more predictable than the weather. I would argue that this is characteristic of a modern, stable democracy. There is no chance of an English version of the Arab Spring. The same is true of most of England's national neighbours. The main source of volatility is from second-generation migrants who are torn between their cultural roots and the culture of their adopted homeland. Experience shows that by the third generation most incoming families have become assimilated, even when they maintain connections to their roots. After all, isn't the stability why such migrant families moved in the first place?
Even where finance and the economy is concerned, there is a limited range of unpredictable volatility. For the individual or individual family the volatility may seem much more of a concern, although even then it is typically a relatively short time before they return to a more acceptable state of affairs than exist during an economic downturn (I speak from experience).
For those living in less developed countries the situation is much more parlous. The Horn of Africa is one location where unpredictability is also within a limited range, but the norm within that range is less than attractive. Famine due to severe weather conditions is much more commonplace than anyone with a conscience would regard as acceptable. When accompanied by war, or internal conflict, the situation on the ground is exacerbated for ordinary families. Warlords and others will accumulate whatever produce exists, making the famine all the worse by excluding most people from access to it.
Such a situation is now current in eastern Africa. Twice we have seen Bob Geldof and others run global charity concerts (Live Aid in 1985 and Live 8 in 2005) to raise funds to stem the tide of poverty in Africa and elsewhere. Despite these huge and laudable efforts, the problems remain. They would appear to be inevitable. Despite the fund-raising and the intellectual efforts of Development Economists, and the goodwill of well-meaning politicians, people continue to die from starvation in Africa. This does not mean that the world should shrug its shoulders and do nothing, or turn a blind eye; rather we need to look at this problem from a different, more radical perspective. That requires some other things which are also afflicted by famine: (i) the will to succeed, (ii) the acceptance of radical, entrepreneurial ideas.
However, the world is a cautious, conservative place, with people everywhere afraid to embrace new ideas and suggestions. Some people, as we have seen, are so fundamental in their beliefs that they would prefer to main and kill rather than even hear new ideas which might possibly come into conflict with their own. To bow to these pressures—the inertia of the status quoⓒ—is to accept what currently is; a form of surrender, which is inimical to human progress. New ideas need to be granted a full hearing, especially where problems exist which have seemed to be intractable for a ling time. Those who decry such inventiveness are themselves modern Luddites who would be happy to see us return to a contemporary dark age. Such people are easy to spot: their favourite word is no; their inability to listen to or make persuasive argument is their obvious characteristic. Such people give me the blues.
Wednesday, July 06, 2011
Avoiding death and needing taxis
In the wee small hours of Friday night/Saturday morning we had a fire at our home. Already asleep, we were alerted to the fire by the fire detectors. My wife's presence of mind enabled her to grab our foam fire extinguisher and put out the fire while I got the kids out of their bedrooms to safety. As luck would have it, we got away lightly, with the only major damage being to to hot water and heating system. There is soot all over the upstairs floor of our house, smoke in the walls and carpets, and some flooding in the living room below, but compared to what might have been without smoke detectors doesn't bear too much thinking about.
So now we await the clean-up and repairs. The loss adjuster from the insurance company has been very helpful and reassuring. Currently we are getting quotes to pass on to the insurance company for approval. Having never had to deal with an incident like this before has made it all the more traumatic, and in a sense a leap into the unknown. Rationally, the worst of it for the time being is being unable to have a hot bath or shower, but who faces these things rationally? In our house there has been a return to the 1950s, with kettles of water being boiled for hair washes. A cold shower is unpleasant and not something to be undertaken lightly, if at all. Even James Bond only runs the water cold for the last 30 seconds of a normal shower.
The timing of the fire was not optimal, if such a thing was even possible. But to be without hot water in Summer is better than in Winter. However, my son's bar mitzvah is on the horizon, together with all of the final arrangements which need to be made to ensure a memorable occasion for him. As such we are juggling too many demands on our time. And this in the knowledge that it will be several weeks before we can even think about a return to a normal life. We have guests coming in from overseas for this occasion, as well as a home-based reception. This fire will make the bar mitzvah memorable, but not for the best of reasons. The need to deal with builders, plumbers and the quotes and estimates, means that I will probably be unable to get to the airport and collect my guests next week. I will have to call on the services of taxis (Darren: are you reading this?) to ferry people from Heathrow.
As if that was not enough there is also the need to work and earn a living, and do the "school run" twice each day. There is an American saying that "when life throws you lemons, make lemonade", but everyone knows you need more than lemons to do so. We have been thrown an overload of lemons, but without water and sugar all we can do is drown under them, experiencing their sour, bitter taste. I am sure that in the fullness of time I will look back on this experience with a wry smile, but for now all I can manage is a somewhat-forced sense of perspective: at least no-one was hurt. It could have been so very much worse.
As someone who spends his professional hours lecturing on the risk-return tradeoff (in financial and economic contexts), and thinking about financial risk management I have naturally tended to apply my knowledge to this incident. Consequently I cannot speak highly enough of the importance of smoke detectors and foam fire extinguishers for managing personal risk at home. My family and I owe our lives to these appliances.
Monday, June 27, 2011
Demography and other impostors
I like to think of myself as a family man. I like to spend time with my kids. I try hard to listen to what they have to tell me about their lives, despite having a personal tendency to talk rather than listen. I like my kids; they are nice people. And they are growing up quickly. Despite a two-year age gap between them, they are both on the cusp between being children and being adolescents. I suspect that too many of us adults have forgotten what a difficult time adolescence can be, and end up being quite unsympathetic to this natural transition from childhood towards adulthood, which is the root cause of what was once renowned as "the generation gap".
Much as I love to spend time with my children, I also enjoy the quiet time at home when they are in school. This routine will be shattered on Thursday this week, when both of my kids will be at home. This is because teachers at both of their schools will be on strike, hence the schools will be closed on "health and safety" grounds. At first I was irritated by this break into my sacred time alone, but then I considered the issue much more closely, and understood that this strike has been called because of what can only described as an attack on the pension rights of the teachers. I use the term "attack" not as hyperbole, but because that is what is the government's policy truly is.
A pension is a long-term contract between employee and employer, by which a portion of the employee's wages are deferred in order to provide an income after retirement. The deferred wages (int he form of so-called employee and employer contributions) are placed into a pension fund, which invests the monies in the various financial (and other) markets, hopefully generating returns which will provide a decent level of retirement income (pension). Any changes to a contract must surely be negotiated to an agreed conclusion by both parties; anything else must surely constitute a breach of contract. And, although there may be a logical rationale behind the government's decision to change pensions (raise the retirement age, increase the level of contributions, move from defined benefit to defined contributions), to do so unilaterally seems to me to be both legally questionable and ethically wrong.
My interest in pensions began back in the late 1970s. Between doing my Master's degree and my PhD I spent time as a filing clerk for Sotheby's London office. At that time a number of pension funds were engaged in the purchase of fine art. Despite having little but a layman's knowledge of pensions or pension funds at that time I was bemused by this strategy. One consequence of this was finding myself undertaking a PhD thesis on the investment behaviour of UK pension funds. Back in 1980 I recall vividly reading the report produced by the committee chaired by former Prime Minister, Harold Wilson, on the functioning of the financial system. It was then that my attentions were drawn to what has since become known as the "demographic time bomb", whereby society is ageing. We have seen increasing numbers of pensioners and reduced numbers of people of working age. This is one of the rationales underlying the current government's position on pensions. However, more than thirty years have elapsed since I first learned of this demographic time bomb.
Some would argue that it is unfair to the current (coalition) government to blame them for the current attack on pensions, when so many governments have previously failed to grasp the mettle. However, it is not the issue of pensions reform which I am criticising; rather it is the way in which this has been approached in a dictatorial fashion by the government. In a democracy the government is elected to represent the people, including teachers. When democratic government tries to dictate to the people it is in breach of its mandate, and cannot be surprised when people react strongly in opposition. If the government believes its actions to be correct and appropriate it needs to make the case and convince those who will be affected. There needs to be an attempt at consensus. There has been no such attempt. Thus, although I agree that pension reform is increasingly crucial and that the current system is rapidly approaching a tipping point, I remain firmly in the camp of the striking teachers. I shall look forward to spending Thursday with my offspring, and hope that the strike forces the government to rethink how best to go about reforming pensions, not how to impose it on others.
Much as I love to spend time with my children, I also enjoy the quiet time at home when they are in school. This routine will be shattered on Thursday this week, when both of my kids will be at home. This is because teachers at both of their schools will be on strike, hence the schools will be closed on "health and safety" grounds. At first I was irritated by this break into my sacred time alone, but then I considered the issue much more closely, and understood that this strike has been called because of what can only described as an attack on the pension rights of the teachers. I use the term "attack" not as hyperbole, but because that is what is the government's policy truly is.
A pension is a long-term contract between employee and employer, by which a portion of the employee's wages are deferred in order to provide an income after retirement. The deferred wages (int he form of so-called employee and employer contributions) are placed into a pension fund, which invests the monies in the various financial (and other) markets, hopefully generating returns which will provide a decent level of retirement income (pension). Any changes to a contract must surely be negotiated to an agreed conclusion by both parties; anything else must surely constitute a breach of contract. And, although there may be a logical rationale behind the government's decision to change pensions (raise the retirement age, increase the level of contributions, move from defined benefit to defined contributions), to do so unilaterally seems to me to be both legally questionable and ethically wrong.
My interest in pensions began back in the late 1970s. Between doing my Master's degree and my PhD I spent time as a filing clerk for Sotheby's London office. At that time a number of pension funds were engaged in the purchase of fine art. Despite having little but a layman's knowledge of pensions or pension funds at that time I was bemused by this strategy. One consequence of this was finding myself undertaking a PhD thesis on the investment behaviour of UK pension funds. Back in 1980 I recall vividly reading the report produced by the committee chaired by former Prime Minister, Harold Wilson, on the functioning of the financial system. It was then that my attentions were drawn to what has since become known as the "demographic time bomb", whereby society is ageing. We have seen increasing numbers of pensioners and reduced numbers of people of working age. This is one of the rationales underlying the current government's position on pensions. However, more than thirty years have elapsed since I first learned of this demographic time bomb.
Some would argue that it is unfair to the current (coalition) government to blame them for the current attack on pensions, when so many governments have previously failed to grasp the mettle. However, it is not the issue of pensions reform which I am criticising; rather it is the way in which this has been approached in a dictatorial fashion by the government. In a democracy the government is elected to represent the people, including teachers. When democratic government tries to dictate to the people it is in breach of its mandate, and cannot be surprised when people react strongly in opposition. If the government believes its actions to be correct and appropriate it needs to make the case and convince those who will be affected. There needs to be an attempt at consensus. There has been no such attempt. Thus, although I agree that pension reform is increasingly crucial and that the current system is rapidly approaching a tipping point, I remain firmly in the camp of the striking teachers. I shall look forward to spending Thursday with my offspring, and hope that the strike forces the government to rethink how best to go about reforming pensions, not how to impose it on others.
Monday, June 20, 2011
Young Lions on morphine?
Benjamin Franklin is reputed to have said that the only things in life which were certain are death and taxes. The truth is that the only thing in life which is certain is uncertainty itself. Nowhere can this truth be more self-evident than with the English weather! As I write, in the middle of "flaming June", the weather in London has been increasingly uncertain. A fortnight ago we were being warned of drought conditions. No sooner had that been reported on the news than the skies opened up and we were treated to a downpour of seemingly Biblical proportions. Even on a single day the weather in London has been so changeable that it is impossible to know how to dress on a given morning.
Life is full of uncertainties. None of us know in advance when we shall pass on, nor when we shall be fit and well or ill and infirm. Parents want the best for their children, for them to exceed their own accomplishments, but this too is uncertain. Some people will make provisions for dealing with life's uncertainties, while others will acknowledge the fact of life's uncertainties and try to live for the moment; enjoying where possible what life has to throw at them.
Of course, for most of us there is a balance to be struck. We want to protect against those of life's uncertainties for which such provision is possible, while also trying to enjoy the moment and not anaesthetise the joy out of living. When it is possible to insure against uncertainties, it is because institutions have arisen which can calculate the probability of a given event (such as insurance companies), without being able to guarantee to whom such an event will impact. Economists refer to such situations as being of risk rather than uncertainty. Investing in the stock market is a situation of risk; life expectancy in general is one of risk, but of uncertainty for any given individual.
When it comes to football the distinctions between risk and uncertainty can be equally blurred. The result of any given match is one of uncertainty, while the winners of a football competition over the course of a season is one of risk. Nowhere has this blurred distinction been more evident than in the EURO under-21 competition, hosted in Denmark.
Last night the England U21 team were dismissed from the competition after failing to win any of their three group stage matches. At the start of the competition they had been hailed as one of the favourites, along with Spain. But England's failure to progress mirrored the failings of the senior team in last year's World Cup in South Africa. Given the players at the manager's disposal, their track record playing for their individual clubs in the English Premier League (EPL) and the facilities available, it remains one of life's unanswered questions as to why English sport is so conspicuously unsuccessful in international sports, especially football?
Watching England U21s over the past week or so, the notion that a team is built in the image of its manager seems questionable. As a player, Stuart Pearce was renowned for his lion-hearted spirit, his passion and commitment. His young players this past week failed to manifest such characteristics. While able to defend stoutly, there was a distinct lack of creative flair, with too few goal-scoring chances being carved out. If I had to had to pay to watch these England performances I might have been inclined to ask for my money back! Something appears to happen when good EPL players turn out for the English national team. The usual excuses of a long hard season are trotted out, but somehow these do not apply to foreign players who ply their trade in the EPL. The fault, therefore, must lie with the management team. After all, as the old Russian saying goes: a fish rots from the head. Time to go fishing for something fresh?!
Wednesday, May 25, 2011
Football and the sacrifice of managers
Karren Brady is well-known as a TV personality via her appearances on "The Apprentice", but is also a renowned businesswoman in the world of football. In March 1993, at the tender age of 23 she became the managing director of Birmingham City Football Club. She managed the company flotation in 1997, and is often seen as being responsible in her off-field capacity for the club's promotion to the Premier League in 2002. In 2009, following the takeover of Birmingham City by Carson Leung, she left and was appointed vice-chairman at West Ham United, when it was taken over by the men who had brought her to Birmingham City: David Sullivan and David Gold. With one week remaining in the Premier League season it was Karren Brady who pointed her finger at manager, Avram Grant, and told him "you're fired!"
Karren Brady grew up immersed in the world of football, as her father, Terry, had been chairman of Swindon Town and a director at Portsmouth. Her success at Birmingham City is renowned. The current short-term failure of West Ham to remain in English top-flight football ranks alongside the failure of England's bid to host the 2018 World Cup. In August 2009 she had been appointed Chairman of the 2018 World Cup bid Advisory Board. However, no-one can be successful in every single one of their endeavours, and men and women who prove to be long-term successes will often point to their failures as a stimulus and a learning experience which helps them gain later success. It may well be that West Ham will prove to be a long-term success under Brady's leadership, but for the present her actions in sacking Avram Grant leave a bitter taste in the mouth.
Success in football, as in other areas of business and life, is a matter of performing at or above the level of expectations. If expectations are set too high then failure will undoubtedly ensue; if set too low then success will be achieved, but it will remain a pyrrhic victory. Avram Grant had been appointed at West Ham to manage the team and prevent relegation, a task in which he clearly failed (for whatever reasons). However, to sack a manager with one final game remaining, a game which would not prevent relegation, seems to be almost pointless. It is not ruthless management, but an exercise in passing the buck with a degree of spinelessness. Surely if Avram Grant had the qualities desired to achieve West Ham's goal ex ante, then those same qualities would be desirable in achieving promotion from the Championship to the Premier League in 2011–2012? If that is not the case then surely Brady got it wrong in appointing Grant in the first instance, and perhaps it is she who should resign? After all, he was appointed manager at West Ham having just managed Portsmouth to relegation from the Premier League!
But football is not like that. Supporters will always require a scapegoat for failure to achieve the expected. Sometimes they will accuse the Board of being responsible for failure, but more often than not it is the manager who will be sacrificed. Avram Grant had previously been sacrificed as manager of Chelsea, when his team there failed to achieve success in the Champions League (they lost the final), the League Cup (they lost the final), and came second in the Premier League (on the last day of the season). Chelsea had the decency to terminate his contract at the end of the season. However, it should be remembered that he only became manager in September 2007 following the ignominious sacking of José Mourinho. Prior to that Grant had been Chelsea's Director of Football.
Grant's track record suggests that he is a knowledgable and talented football manager, but not necessarily a lucky manager. In their excellent book The 90-Minute Manager: Business Lessons from the Dugout (2002), David Bolchover and Chris Brady list several desirable qualities in a top-flight manager: integrity, passion, ability to relax, analytical skills, hunger to learn, attention to detail, ability to get things done, insatiable appetite for accomplishment and results, self-belief, enthusiasm, people skills, ruthlessness, presence, and luck. As they note, "Great managers need to be lucky." Grant is serially unlucky. Against this we may cite the example of Sir Alex Ferguson, a man who took several seasons in the hot-seat at Manchester United to achieve any form of success. Had the Board listened to the supporters in the early years of his tenancy, Ferguson would have been sacked and never had the opportunity to become the most successful manager in English football, achieving 19 top-flight League titles to-date. Ferguson was lucky to have had the confidence of the Board, who must have felt he would ultimately bring success despite the failures of the early years. Should Sir Alex ever retire his successor will be handed a poisoned chalice, weighed down by the weight of expectation of success of a Manchester United manager.
There are, of course, many, many other examples of how important it is to manage expectations, especially of the supporters, select a manager with the appropriate qualities (as listed above) and stick with him through thick and thin. Boards of Directors need to put in place and maintain a long-term strategic perspective that the team manager is not always in a position to do, with a focus on trying to win the next game! The problem with the sacrifice of managers is that Boards of Directors fail to heed the words of Shakespeare: "The fault, dear Brutus, lies not within our stars, but within ourselves." A lesson that surely extends beyond football to every line of business and individual life!
Karren Brady grew up immersed in the world of football, as her father, Terry, had been chairman of Swindon Town and a director at Portsmouth. Her success at Birmingham City is renowned. The current short-term failure of West Ham to remain in English top-flight football ranks alongside the failure of England's bid to host the 2018 World Cup. In August 2009 she had been appointed Chairman of the 2018 World Cup bid Advisory Board. However, no-one can be successful in every single one of their endeavours, and men and women who prove to be long-term successes will often point to their failures as a stimulus and a learning experience which helps them gain later success. It may well be that West Ham will prove to be a long-term success under Brady's leadership, but for the present her actions in sacking Avram Grant leave a bitter taste in the mouth.
Success in football, as in other areas of business and life, is a matter of performing at or above the level of expectations. If expectations are set too high then failure will undoubtedly ensue; if set too low then success will be achieved, but it will remain a pyrrhic victory. Avram Grant had been appointed at West Ham to manage the team and prevent relegation, a task in which he clearly failed (for whatever reasons). However, to sack a manager with one final game remaining, a game which would not prevent relegation, seems to be almost pointless. It is not ruthless management, but an exercise in passing the buck with a degree of spinelessness. Surely if Avram Grant had the qualities desired to achieve West Ham's goal ex ante, then those same qualities would be desirable in achieving promotion from the Championship to the Premier League in 2011–2012? If that is not the case then surely Brady got it wrong in appointing Grant in the first instance, and perhaps it is she who should resign? After all, he was appointed manager at West Ham having just managed Portsmouth to relegation from the Premier League!
But football is not like that. Supporters will always require a scapegoat for failure to achieve the expected. Sometimes they will accuse the Board of being responsible for failure, but more often than not it is the manager who will be sacrificed. Avram Grant had previously been sacrificed as manager of Chelsea, when his team there failed to achieve success in the Champions League (they lost the final), the League Cup (they lost the final), and came second in the Premier League (on the last day of the season). Chelsea had the decency to terminate his contract at the end of the season. However, it should be remembered that he only became manager in September 2007 following the ignominious sacking of José Mourinho. Prior to that Grant had been Chelsea's Director of Football.
Grant's track record suggests that he is a knowledgable and talented football manager, but not necessarily a lucky manager. In their excellent book The 90-Minute Manager: Business Lessons from the Dugout (2002), David Bolchover and Chris Brady list several desirable qualities in a top-flight manager: integrity, passion, ability to relax, analytical skills, hunger to learn, attention to detail, ability to get things done, insatiable appetite for accomplishment and results, self-belief, enthusiasm, people skills, ruthlessness, presence, and luck. As they note, "Great managers need to be lucky." Grant is serially unlucky. Against this we may cite the example of Sir Alex Ferguson, a man who took several seasons in the hot-seat at Manchester United to achieve any form of success. Had the Board listened to the supporters in the early years of his tenancy, Ferguson would have been sacked and never had the opportunity to become the most successful manager in English football, achieving 19 top-flight League titles to-date. Ferguson was lucky to have had the confidence of the Board, who must have felt he would ultimately bring success despite the failures of the early years. Should Sir Alex ever retire his successor will be handed a poisoned chalice, weighed down by the weight of expectation of success of a Manchester United manager.
There are, of course, many, many other examples of how important it is to manage expectations, especially of the supporters, select a manager with the appropriate qualities (as listed above) and stick with him through thick and thin. Boards of Directors need to put in place and maintain a long-term strategic perspective that the team manager is not always in a position to do, with a focus on trying to win the next game! The problem with the sacrifice of managers is that Boards of Directors fail to heed the words of Shakespeare: "The fault, dear Brutus, lies not within our stars, but within ourselves." A lesson that surely extends beyond football to every line of business and individual life!
Sunday, May 15, 2011
Football, antisemitism and the Baddiels
In recent weeks the Baddiel brothers have commenced a campaign which aims to rid antisemitism among supporters of football. The campaign has been designed to run parallel to the more general "Kick Racism Out of Football" campaign, which has run with some (albeit limited) success over the past few years. The main thrust of the Baddiel-sponsored campaign has been a short film focusing on the use of the term "Yids" by supporters of Tottenham Hotspur, which they regard as being antisemitic per se, and also as an encouragement of antisemitism. Both of these are arguments which I would refute in the strongest possible terms, my view being based on having been a Spurs' supporter for a little more than a half-century!
Quite naturally, the unveiling of the Baddiel campaign received significant coverage in the foremost Jewish newspaper in the United Kingdom, the Jewish Chronicle (www.theJC.com). Equally naturally points of view have been espoused in the Letters to the Editor section. Recently, the view espoused by the Baddiels was taken up by a supporter from Arsenal, although his awkward attempt at humour based on the age-old Spurs-Arsenal rivalry treated the subject with less gravitas than it deserved. It does not happen frequently, but on this occasion I was moved to respond, and sent my own perspective on the debate to the Jewish Chronicle, which they duly printed in Friday's edition. Unfortunately, the online edition does not include letters, so for those interested yet unable to obtain the Jewish Chronicle, I reproduce my letter below:
Quite naturally, the unveiling of the Baddiel campaign received significant coverage in the foremost Jewish newspaper in the United Kingdom, the Jewish Chronicle (www.theJC.com). Equally naturally points of view have been espoused in the Letters to the Editor section. Recently, the view espoused by the Baddiels was taken up by a supporter from Arsenal, although his awkward attempt at humour based on the age-old Spurs-Arsenal rivalry treated the subject with less gravitas than it deserved. It does not happen frequently, but on this occasion I was moved to respond, and sent my own perspective on the debate to the Jewish Chronicle, which they duly printed in Friday's edition. Unfortunately, the online edition does not include letters, so for those interested yet unable to obtain the Jewish Chronicle, I reproduce my letter below:
The rambling hyperbole of Stephen Ryde (JC, April 29), lack of intellectual rigour and its reactionary conclusion do little to treat the subject of antisemitism with the seriousness it deserves. His argument is all too similar to that which argues that women who wear short skirts are asking to be raped: wrong on every possible level. As for the outlawing of the use of particular words, this has no place in a modern, democratic society where freedom of speech is valued.
I would like to refer Mr Ryde to the learned article "When is a Yid not a Jew?", by John Efron, Koret Professor of Social History at Berkeley University (http://bit.ly/luikAu). The use of the term "Yids" and, more frequently, "Yiddos" began in the late 1970s as a reaction against the antisemitic chanting of other teams, most notably Chelsea, Arsenal and West Ham. It can be seen in exactly the same vein as the use of the term "nigger" by sections of the African-American community. It is a classic case of turning a term of derogation into s badge of honour. This has taken place for so many years, that the term "Yid" has now become commensurate with "Spurs supporter" in football grounds around the country, with many younger supporters having little or no idea of the original defamatory use of the word.
Any campaign to reduce antisemitism is laudable, although as with anything the battles need to be chosen with care. In selecting Spurs supporters and their chanting of "Yids", the Baddiels are on shaky ground. They need to begin their campaign by cleaning up the mess in their own back-yards first: Chelsea continue to sing "Spurs are on their way to Auschwitz" and make gas chamber noises. When Jewish support at Stamford Bridge deals with this issue (instead of joining in, as sometimes happens) then the campaign will be able to claim a degree of progress.
Stephen Ryde is wrong. As a Jewish supporter of Spurs for nigh on a half-century, I shall continue to join in with my fellow supporters chating of "Yids" and "Yiddos" in the full knowledge that this is a reaction against antisemitism, not an encouragement of it.
As a postscript, I support any attempt to diminish hatred of any description, be it racism, antisemitism, gender bias or ageism, but believe that football supporters are not necessarily the right focus, as they mirror the views of society in general. Ultimately, antisemitism is the oldest hatred in the world, a hatred which has been fostered by 2,000 years of propaganda by the Church and, more recently by elements of the Muslim world, often under the thinly-veiled guise of anti-Zionism or anti-Israel. But hatred is hatred, and we can only hope that those who perpetrate it will end up hoist by their own petards. The Baddiels may have the very best of intentions, but those are the paving stones on the road to hell.
Friday, March 04, 2011
The Middle East is on fire (allegedly)
The past month has seen a remarkable turn of events in the world. The people have taken to the streets to protest in countries where such things are usually frowned upon, except when they have been orchestrated by government agencies against some external "enemy". This time, the people have been protesting against internal matters.
While from the outside it seems that these popular uprisings are aimed primarily at removing dictators (however apparently benign) from their entrenched positions of power, this is not necessarily how it all began. The first protests which reached a critical mass were in Tunisia. Although these ultimately achieved the downfall of the President, the original stimulus was a combination of high unemployment (especially among the young) and increasingly high food prices. It is true that even western, high-income countries are suffering from similar economic issues. However, in the west we are much more accustomed to regard these circumstances as impersonal, brought about by global or local 'market forces', and perhaps beyond the ability of government to remedy. Indeed, in some countries government is already regarded as having too much interference in the economy! In countries like Tunisia, this is not the case: government is often a key agent in determining prices, through the use of taxes and/or subsidies, and is therefore readily identified as the source of unemployment and unwelcome price rises.
Once events developed in Tunisia, there has been something of a domino effect, of which the protests in Egypt, Libya and Bahrain have been the most high profile. There have been protests in Iran as well, although the government there has clamped down on them in its usual ruthless manner, and worked hard to prevent news of such events leaking to the outside world. Of course, although it is essentially a Muslim country, Tunisia is not in the Middle East; it is in north Africa, on the coast of the Mediterranean. Only Bahrain, and perhaps Iran can truly be said to lie in the Middle East. But whatever the geographical location, a large number of Muslim countries under dictatorship are finding the ground shifting under their feet.
While Tunisia and Egypt have seen the status quo completely ruptured, there is still a long way to go before full closure occurs, with new (democratic) government institutions in place. Things elsewhere are not yet at such an advanced stage, with Libya looking rent asunder by civil war. Protests in other places, such as Jordan, have been much more mild, seeking reforms of a more minor nature. But whichever way one views the world, there appears to be an increasing thirst for democracy. And this can surely be no surprise. Once the people of a country begin to experience degrees of economic affluence, brought about by economic growth, they will see to also achieve political affluence. This was also the case in eastern Europe (the former Soviet Union) in the late 1980s, and also countries like South Korea. Although the transition may have taken longer, this is also the tale of western Europe and north America. Economic growth leading to greater distribution of political power: democracy in whatever way, shape or form.
And surely such 'revolutions' will ultimately reach all countries tainted by tyranny? Kim-Jong Il, Ahmedinejad, Qaddafi, and others of your ilk: take care. The world is watching, and waiting. Your downfall is a matter of when, not if.
While from the outside it seems that these popular uprisings are aimed primarily at removing dictators (however apparently benign) from their entrenched positions of power, this is not necessarily how it all began. The first protests which reached a critical mass were in Tunisia. Although these ultimately achieved the downfall of the President, the original stimulus was a combination of high unemployment (especially among the young) and increasingly high food prices. It is true that even western, high-income countries are suffering from similar economic issues. However, in the west we are much more accustomed to regard these circumstances as impersonal, brought about by global or local 'market forces', and perhaps beyond the ability of government to remedy. Indeed, in some countries government is already regarded as having too much interference in the economy! In countries like Tunisia, this is not the case: government is often a key agent in determining prices, through the use of taxes and/or subsidies, and is therefore readily identified as the source of unemployment and unwelcome price rises.
Once events developed in Tunisia, there has been something of a domino effect, of which the protests in Egypt, Libya and Bahrain have been the most high profile. There have been protests in Iran as well, although the government there has clamped down on them in its usual ruthless manner, and worked hard to prevent news of such events leaking to the outside world. Of course, although it is essentially a Muslim country, Tunisia is not in the Middle East; it is in north Africa, on the coast of the Mediterranean. Only Bahrain, and perhaps Iran can truly be said to lie in the Middle East. But whatever the geographical location, a large number of Muslim countries under dictatorship are finding the ground shifting under their feet.
While Tunisia and Egypt have seen the status quo completely ruptured, there is still a long way to go before full closure occurs, with new (democratic) government institutions in place. Things elsewhere are not yet at such an advanced stage, with Libya looking rent asunder by civil war. Protests in other places, such as Jordan, have been much more mild, seeking reforms of a more minor nature. But whichever way one views the world, there appears to be an increasing thirst for democracy. And this can surely be no surprise. Once the people of a country begin to experience degrees of economic affluence, brought about by economic growth, they will see to also achieve political affluence. This was also the case in eastern Europe (the former Soviet Union) in the late 1980s, and also countries like South Korea. Although the transition may have taken longer, this is also the tale of western Europe and north America. Economic growth leading to greater distribution of political power: democracy in whatever way, shape or form.
And surely such 'revolutions' will ultimately reach all countries tainted by tyranny? Kim-Jong Il, Ahmedinejad, Qaddafi, and others of your ilk: take care. The world is watching, and waiting. Your downfall is a matter of when, not if.
Sunday, January 30, 2011
The beautiful game
Some years ago it became apparent that playing competitive football was no longer an option for me. The body took longer to recover from each match; stretching beforehand was seemingly taking almost as long as the first half, and warming-down was no longer desirable but essential. Of course, all footballers—professional and amateur—face a time when a decision to stop playing has to be taken. Fortunately for me there was an alternative: coaching.
During the 1980s I had lived and worked in the United States. At that time it seems that there were far too few coaches with experience of playing the game. With an English accent, I was approached by players at the College where I was working as a Lecturer, and asked to help out with the men's team. I rapidly discovered that there is a huge difference between playing and coaching. I was fortunate to find a coaching clinic which enabled me to start on the coaching ladder, and acquired a coaching license under the auspices of the United States Soccer Federation (as it was then called).
During my decade or so in the United States I was privileged to coach mens' and womens' college teams, as well as mens' and womens' high school teams. In addition, I also had the opportunity to coach on various soccer camps during the Summer months. However, in many ways the highlight was helping to establish soccer programmes for girls in the western Carolinas. In 1987 I was invited by Briggs Sherwood to help start a girls' programme in the Asheville NC area. We started with between 6 and 12 girls playing soccer on recreational basis, and rapidly expanded. Soon there was a selective "travel" team. By the time I moved back to London in the early 1990s there was a full recreational league for girls in the Asheville-Buncombe area. I understand that this now numbers several thousand players, with full-time administrators and coaches! From little acorns might oaks develop.
When I returned to the UK, I was fortunate to be instrumental in helping start the nascent internet football competition, being the founding coach of the Internet Hotspurs. This was a team drawn from subscribers to the Spurs-List, an online forum for Spurs' supporters. The first ever match played was when we travelled to the midlands to play the Leeds team ("internet Lard"), and shortly thereafter we played in the first ever WorldNet: the internet version of the World Cup! The Internet Hotspurs also played in a high profile match against the Internet Gooners, a game played at Clarence Park, St. Albans before a crowd of about a hundred, and covered by .Net magazine.
Currently, I have the honour to coach my son's team, HMH U13 B. One of twenty teams organised by the HMH club, this sees me return very much to my roots in coaching. Back in the late 1970s I was a member of the north London Victoria Boys' and Girls' Club, and I was approached by Nick Sonnenfield to coach a team of U10s. which I did until moving to the USA in 1982. HMH is headed by the same Nick Sonnenfield! As I write I had expected to be coaching away in St. Albans against Harvesters South, but a late phone call informed me that the match was called off due to a frozen, unplayable pitch. Hopefully, my text message to all of the parents of my players got through in time to save them from making an unnecessary journey up the A1.
For me coaching initially was a way to stay in contact with the beautiful game when my playing days were numbered. Something of a vicarious pleasure. However, since then the rewards have become much more manifest. The great relationships a coach makes with his players is something which transcends time and space. The young teenage girls I coached back in Asheville in the 1980s are now grown women with children of their own, many of whom continue to enjoy the beautiful game. Facebook (for example) makes it easy to stay in touch with these wonderful people, and see how the chain continues with new, additional links down the generations. The values of a team sport with room for amazing feats of individualism was well understood by the Victorians, the original founders and codifiers of the game. While the upper echelons of the professional game have lost their way, as have some of the key broadcast personalities, the game remains beautiful because its destiny, as was its history, lies in the hands of the ordinary people who play and coach, often on a purely voluntary basis.
During the 1980s I had lived and worked in the United States. At that time it seems that there were far too few coaches with experience of playing the game. With an English accent, I was approached by players at the College where I was working as a Lecturer, and asked to help out with the men's team. I rapidly discovered that there is a huge difference between playing and coaching. I was fortunate to find a coaching clinic which enabled me to start on the coaching ladder, and acquired a coaching license under the auspices of the United States Soccer Federation (as it was then called).
During my decade or so in the United States I was privileged to coach mens' and womens' college teams, as well as mens' and womens' high school teams. In addition, I also had the opportunity to coach on various soccer camps during the Summer months. However, in many ways the highlight was helping to establish soccer programmes for girls in the western Carolinas. In 1987 I was invited by Briggs Sherwood to help start a girls' programme in the Asheville NC area. We started with between 6 and 12 girls playing soccer on recreational basis, and rapidly expanded. Soon there was a selective "travel" team. By the time I moved back to London in the early 1990s there was a full recreational league for girls in the Asheville-Buncombe area. I understand that this now numbers several thousand players, with full-time administrators and coaches! From little acorns might oaks develop.
When I returned to the UK, I was fortunate to be instrumental in helping start the nascent internet football competition, being the founding coach of the Internet Hotspurs. This was a team drawn from subscribers to the Spurs-List, an online forum for Spurs' supporters. The first ever match played was when we travelled to the midlands to play the Leeds team ("internet Lard"), and shortly thereafter we played in the first ever WorldNet: the internet version of the World Cup! The Internet Hotspurs also played in a high profile match against the Internet Gooners, a game played at Clarence Park, St. Albans before a crowd of about a hundred, and covered by .Net magazine.
Currently, I have the honour to coach my son's team, HMH U13 B. One of twenty teams organised by the HMH club, this sees me return very much to my roots in coaching. Back in the late 1970s I was a member of the north London Victoria Boys' and Girls' Club, and I was approached by Nick Sonnenfield to coach a team of U10s. which I did until moving to the USA in 1982. HMH is headed by the same Nick Sonnenfield! As I write I had expected to be coaching away in St. Albans against Harvesters South, but a late phone call informed me that the match was called off due to a frozen, unplayable pitch. Hopefully, my text message to all of the parents of my players got through in time to save them from making an unnecessary journey up the A1.
For me coaching initially was a way to stay in contact with the beautiful game when my playing days were numbered. Something of a vicarious pleasure. However, since then the rewards have become much more manifest. The great relationships a coach makes with his players is something which transcends time and space. The young teenage girls I coached back in Asheville in the 1980s are now grown women with children of their own, many of whom continue to enjoy the beautiful game. Facebook (for example) makes it easy to stay in touch with these wonderful people, and see how the chain continues with new, additional links down the generations. The values of a team sport with room for amazing feats of individualism was well understood by the Victorians, the original founders and codifiers of the game. While the upper echelons of the professional game have lost their way, as have some of the key broadcast personalities, the game remains beautiful because its destiny, as was its history, lies in the hands of the ordinary people who play and coach, often on a purely voluntary basis.
Tuesday, January 04, 2011
New Year (2011) musings
With the Xmas and New Year's festivities now over, the UK is slowly returning to its pre-holidays routine. Early this morning, while the sun had yet to rise, I saw children and young people once again in their school uniforms waiting for their school buses, looking glassy eyed in their early morning mental haze. Adults waited for public transport and drove their cars, presumably to work, equally as glassy eyed. The passage from holiday mode to work mode is a slow drift, and it may be a week or more before the leisurely pace of the holiday season gives way to the more usual hectic pace of London life.
The British coalition government has visited upon us its latest offerings to diminish the public debt: rises in VAT and an increase in fuel duties. The idea of looking forward to a better year than the one that has just finished is already taking a battering, and once the haze lifts the British will (suddenly?) realise how much worse off they will be this year than in 2010. Higher taxes, reduced public services, and a slew of supposedly radical reforms (typically ill-thought out and introduced without full and proper consideration) will increase the woe of those of us in employment while doing little (less?) for those out of work. And there is every possibility that the numbers of those out of work will increase significantly in 2011. Naturally, the current government will let us know in no uncertain terms that this is all the result of the profligacy of their predecessors, as governments have done since time immemorial. I suppose there is some degree of reassurance in the constancy of blame-apportionment by British politicians!
So what can we expect differently this year than last? The most immediate difference is that this time last year we were awaiting a UK general election. Unless something quite unforeseen occurs the current government are unlikely to resign and call another election. But their policies will be a sure signpost as to what is to come. For the first time in a generation or two student activism is on the rise. Similarly, we have seen an increased level of trades union opposition to government cuts. Is there any likelihood that this will cause the government to change their mind and alter their policies? Hardly! So, while we are unlikely to see any return to the heady days of industrial and political conflict of the late 1970s, we are already seeing a strong move away from the consensus politics which seem to have been much more the norm in the past 25 years or so. And with the Labour party having selected the wring Miliband brother as its leader, we can expect little by way of effective political opposition.
Africa continues to remain much the same: AIDS continues to run rampant, wars and conflicts remain in place, dictators remain unchallenged, and poverty remains the norm for ordinary, blameless millions of African people. The Middle East remains a tinderbox, where war could break out at any time, especially with the West unwilling (or unable) to rein in the nuclear ambitions of a hostile Iran. It remains increasingly unlikely that the Arab nations will see Israel as anything but a regional state: it has the wrong religion, too much of a European cultural basis, it remains a democracy, and is too convenient as an excuse for all of the flaws in those Arab countries. Any criticism of Arab countries, their politics, or their way of life is always countered with arguments about "the occupation". Were the really a concern for the ordinary Palestinians this could have been dealt with decades ago; but for now "the Palestinian issue" continues to be a good way to distract Arabs away from the internal problems in their own countries, something which has been used by every known dictator for centuries. And, as we might expect a withdrawal of Allied troops from Iraq and Afghanistan in the next year or so, it will be interesting to see if they move to a more normal state of affairs or implode if there is a vacuum!
And what of Europe? The EU has been under economic pressure, with some commentators wondering if the single European currency would survive. And why should it not? There have been worse economic crises faced by countries that that facing us now, and little changes as a result. After all, as the old saying goes: it's the rich what gets the pleasure, and the poor what gets the blame. Have you seen any corrupt politicians or bankers who may have played fast and loose with other people's money down at your local unemployment centre? Of course not. The problem is that politicians often feel they have to be seen to be making laws to restrict risk-taking activities, whether or not that will actually help things in the longer run or not. Most laws enacted nowadays have a tendency to inflict further restrictions on freedom, particularly of the ordinary person. I suppose the main argument in favour of the current UK government is that they have abolished the notion of introducing ID cards!
There is not a great deal to say about the USA: Americans say enough about very little of substance. The US is a very narrow democracy, with little difference between the two main parties to warrant comment. For all of his apparent flaws the President has made strides in areas where previously no progress was able to be made: health in particular. Similarly, everyone is talking about China, but what remains to be said which hasn't been said before? Surely as the rest of the high-income world comes out of recession, China will find itself having to deal with higher global prices and facing consequent inflation at home. Latin America remains relatively stable, with little to note except Brasil's first female president. Congratulations, Dilma!
But I have saved the best for last (almost): David Beckham. It is said that he wishes to come to the English Premier League (EPL) during the US soccer close season. This 35 year old footballing icon could bring his high profile status to an English team, and work on his own fitness. He would be a boon to the younger players of whichever team he joins, as his attitude and talent would rub off (or there would be a positive externality, as Economists call it!). It would raise even further the overseas profile of the EPL, which is already the most-watched League in the world. We all wait with bated breath to see if he will be given permission by his current employers: the L A Galaxy.
Finally, congratulations to the England cricket team on retaining the Ashes. It is always good to get one over on one's fiercest opponents. And for an England cricket team to beat the Aussies so decisively enables me, in common with so many other Englishmen and women, to engage in some very pleasant schadenfreude. May I take this opportunity to wish you all a happy and healthy 2011 in which some of your dreams come true.
The British coalition government has visited upon us its latest offerings to diminish the public debt: rises in VAT and an increase in fuel duties. The idea of looking forward to a better year than the one that has just finished is already taking a battering, and once the haze lifts the British will (suddenly?) realise how much worse off they will be this year than in 2010. Higher taxes, reduced public services, and a slew of supposedly radical reforms (typically ill-thought out and introduced without full and proper consideration) will increase the woe of those of us in employment while doing little (less?) for those out of work. And there is every possibility that the numbers of those out of work will increase significantly in 2011. Naturally, the current government will let us know in no uncertain terms that this is all the result of the profligacy of their predecessors, as governments have done since time immemorial. I suppose there is some degree of reassurance in the constancy of blame-apportionment by British politicians!
So what can we expect differently this year than last? The most immediate difference is that this time last year we were awaiting a UK general election. Unless something quite unforeseen occurs the current government are unlikely to resign and call another election. But their policies will be a sure signpost as to what is to come. For the first time in a generation or two student activism is on the rise. Similarly, we have seen an increased level of trades union opposition to government cuts. Is there any likelihood that this will cause the government to change their mind and alter their policies? Hardly! So, while we are unlikely to see any return to the heady days of industrial and political conflict of the late 1970s, we are already seeing a strong move away from the consensus politics which seem to have been much more the norm in the past 25 years or so. And with the Labour party having selected the wring Miliband brother as its leader, we can expect little by way of effective political opposition.
Africa continues to remain much the same: AIDS continues to run rampant, wars and conflicts remain in place, dictators remain unchallenged, and poverty remains the norm for ordinary, blameless millions of African people. The Middle East remains a tinderbox, where war could break out at any time, especially with the West unwilling (or unable) to rein in the nuclear ambitions of a hostile Iran. It remains increasingly unlikely that the Arab nations will see Israel as anything but a regional state: it has the wrong religion, too much of a European cultural basis, it remains a democracy, and is too convenient as an excuse for all of the flaws in those Arab countries. Any criticism of Arab countries, their politics, or their way of life is always countered with arguments about "the occupation". Were the really a concern for the ordinary Palestinians this could have been dealt with decades ago; but for now "the Palestinian issue" continues to be a good way to distract Arabs away from the internal problems in their own countries, something which has been used by every known dictator for centuries. And, as we might expect a withdrawal of Allied troops from Iraq and Afghanistan in the next year or so, it will be interesting to see if they move to a more normal state of affairs or implode if there is a vacuum!
And what of Europe? The EU has been under economic pressure, with some commentators wondering if the single European currency would survive. And why should it not? There have been worse economic crises faced by countries that that facing us now, and little changes as a result. After all, as the old saying goes: it's the rich what gets the pleasure, and the poor what gets the blame. Have you seen any corrupt politicians or bankers who may have played fast and loose with other people's money down at your local unemployment centre? Of course not. The problem is that politicians often feel they have to be seen to be making laws to restrict risk-taking activities, whether or not that will actually help things in the longer run or not. Most laws enacted nowadays have a tendency to inflict further restrictions on freedom, particularly of the ordinary person. I suppose the main argument in favour of the current UK government is that they have abolished the notion of introducing ID cards!
There is not a great deal to say about the USA: Americans say enough about very little of substance. The US is a very narrow democracy, with little difference between the two main parties to warrant comment. For all of his apparent flaws the President has made strides in areas where previously no progress was able to be made: health in particular. Similarly, everyone is talking about China, but what remains to be said which hasn't been said before? Surely as the rest of the high-income world comes out of recession, China will find itself having to deal with higher global prices and facing consequent inflation at home. Latin America remains relatively stable, with little to note except Brasil's first female president. Congratulations, Dilma!
But I have saved the best for last (almost): David Beckham. It is said that he wishes to come to the English Premier League (EPL) during the US soccer close season. This 35 year old footballing icon could bring his high profile status to an English team, and work on his own fitness. He would be a boon to the younger players of whichever team he joins, as his attitude and talent would rub off (or there would be a positive externality, as Economists call it!). It would raise even further the overseas profile of the EPL, which is already the most-watched League in the world. We all wait with bated breath to see if he will be given permission by his current employers: the L A Galaxy.
Finally, congratulations to the England cricket team on retaining the Ashes. It is always good to get one over on one's fiercest opponents. And for an England cricket team to beat the Aussies so decisively enables me, in common with so many other Englishmen and women, to engage in some very pleasant schadenfreude. May I take this opportunity to wish you all a happy and healthy 2011 in which some of your dreams come true.
Tuesday, December 21, 2010
Winter solstice
It's been a while since I had a few minutes of spare time to update this blog. This past semester has been incredibly busy, with little time to enjoy life's little pleasures. However, the upside has been the delight of working with so many wonderful people, who make going to work much less than a chore by which I earn my living. With quite a few now having completed their studies, it is a double-edged sword: on the one hand it is terrific to see young people whom I have grown fond of develop their skills and move on to the ext stage of their lives, on the other hand it is always tinged with sadness when people for whom you have developed some affection move on. The true measure of the bond which has developed between us will be the degree to which they stay in touch in future. And staying in touch has never been easier, especially with such social networks as Facebook, Twitter and LinkedIn.
Here in London, where everyone is always obsessed with the weather, there has been even more to discuss with the excessive cold weather and transport-disrupting snow we have been experiencing since the start of December. It always amazes me that the country which invented the Industrial Revolution, forged a world-wide empire, and gave the world it's finest sports (especially Association Football) is unable to cope with snow. A few inches and the transport systems grind to a halt. While so many British will take the opportunity for a well-deserved, but sly, day off work, the huge numbers of people stranded at airports, Eurostar terminals and see-ports is surely unacceptable in the 21st century? The lack of information is reminiscent of what passed for "service" in the UK in the 1970s. With almost every traveller in possession of a smartphone, this seems all the more unacceptable. The pictures on TV and elsewhere of hundreds and thousands of people stuck in airport terminals is not what one would expect in a modern, well-functioning capitalist economy. Queues of this nature are surely much more part of the old third-world Moscow-dominated communist world?
There are some who have conjectured that the bad weather has been a plot by the British Conservative-Liberal Democratic coalition government to cover up the bad news coming from Parliament. The immense cuts in government expenditure and the increases in taxation are surely no surprise, whether or not one agrees with them. However, some of the government's more radical proposals seem as ill thought out and rushed as those of the previous Labour government. For Labour's absurd ID card scheme the Con-Dems have given us a radical change in the way the NHS will be funded, putting the funds into the hands of GPs (most of whom appear not to want such responsibility). It seems that those elected to government wish to make their mark, whether or not it is in the interests of the people. Perhaps they should familiarise themselves with the oath taken by medical practitioners: first do no harm.
And finally, and perhaps most importantly, before we know it January will be upon us, and with it the football transfer window. Surely in these hard economic times (so we are told) there will be a real paucity of high profile marquee signings. After all, even many of the wealthiest and most successful clubs are in positions of (unsustainable?) debt. My own hope is for Spurs to strengthen their squad, first by releasing some of the players who are unlikely to see much play, even within a squad system, and then by signing players of note who will compete with the first-choice incumbents and raise the overall standard of play.
Let me wish you all the compliments of the season, and may 2011 be the year which sees us all enjoy health, happiness and a degree of fulfilment.
Here in London, where everyone is always obsessed with the weather, there has been even more to discuss with the excessive cold weather and transport-disrupting snow we have been experiencing since the start of December. It always amazes me that the country which invented the Industrial Revolution, forged a world-wide empire, and gave the world it's finest sports (especially Association Football) is unable to cope with snow. A few inches and the transport systems grind to a halt. While so many British will take the opportunity for a well-deserved, but sly, day off work, the huge numbers of people stranded at airports, Eurostar terminals and see-ports is surely unacceptable in the 21st century? The lack of information is reminiscent of what passed for "service" in the UK in the 1970s. With almost every traveller in possession of a smartphone, this seems all the more unacceptable. The pictures on TV and elsewhere of hundreds and thousands of people stuck in airport terminals is not what one would expect in a modern, well-functioning capitalist economy. Queues of this nature are surely much more part of the old third-world Moscow-dominated communist world?
There are some who have conjectured that the bad weather has been a plot by the British Conservative-Liberal Democratic coalition government to cover up the bad news coming from Parliament. The immense cuts in government expenditure and the increases in taxation are surely no surprise, whether or not one agrees with them. However, some of the government's more radical proposals seem as ill thought out and rushed as those of the previous Labour government. For Labour's absurd ID card scheme the Con-Dems have given us a radical change in the way the NHS will be funded, putting the funds into the hands of GPs (most of whom appear not to want such responsibility). It seems that those elected to government wish to make their mark, whether or not it is in the interests of the people. Perhaps they should familiarise themselves with the oath taken by medical practitioners: first do no harm.
And finally, and perhaps most importantly, before we know it January will be upon us, and with it the football transfer window. Surely in these hard economic times (so we are told) there will be a real paucity of high profile marquee signings. After all, even many of the wealthiest and most successful clubs are in positions of (unsustainable?) debt. My own hope is for Spurs to strengthen their squad, first by releasing some of the players who are unlikely to see much play, even within a squad system, and then by signing players of note who will compete with the first-choice incumbents and raise the overall standard of play.
Let me wish you all the compliments of the season, and may 2011 be the year which sees us all enjoy health, happiness and a degree of fulfilment.
Monday, July 26, 2010
Medical excursions
In recent weeks I have had to undertake a number of medical excursions. Following a trip to see my GP (family doctor) it turned out that I needed to be referred to specialists for at least two areas of my body which were not operating within normal parameters! As my GP suggested, I had finally become "a gentleman of a certain age". In other words, my body was beginning to show significant signs of depreciation.
Under most circumstances I am quite happy to await an appointment with a NHS specialist. My experiences with the NHS have been mostly quite good, and I had never had to wait more than six weeks to see a specialist. With one of my body issues I was sent an appointment within two weeks. However, the second issue I was told might take between six weeks and two months, despite any (highly unlikely) "worst case scenario" being quite serious. While I generally felt okay within myself, and despite my head saying it would be fine to wait, my heart felt that sooner with a specialist was better than later. Consequently, I made use of the private medical coverage which is part of my employment remuneration and booked an earlier appointment via BUPA. This appointment was within a few days of my calling the BUPA centre.
The private hospital which I attended is on the same grounds as my local NHS hospital. However, the private hospital is much nicer in terms of decor and is much more modern. The NHS hospital has been around for many decades and has a touch of the Edwardian about it; it could certainly do with a lick of paint in places! However, despite the nicer cosmetic appearance of the private hospital my recent experience was much, much better with the NHS than privately.
In both cases I felt it took too long before I was seen. I understand that in a hospital things cannot always be timed exactly and that the unforeseen is a necessary element of medicine. But a quiet word from an administrator or nurse to the effect that the doctor or specialist is running a bit late would reduce a great deal of unnecessary stress from what to most patients is something of an ordeal: a venture into the unknown.
However, the key difference between the two 'sectors' was that the NHS staff generally treated me with humour, dignity and respect, and showed great sensitivity to my fears and trepidations, while the staff in the private sector generally treated me with great indifference, as if it was a standard business transaction. I did not like this mode of "bedside manner" especially when my health is at stake, and more importantly when my body is about to be prodded, poked, investigated and diagnosed in possibly invasive ways. My expectation was that this was the reverse of what we are typically inclined to expect.
In fairness to the private sector, I was gratified that only those procedures which were clinically required were requested. My experience and second-hand understanding of other private sector medical provision (such as in the USA) is that this is not always the case.
In the end, I was pleased to have essentially been given a clean bill of health by both sectors, with only minor amendments to my lifestyle (well, diet) required. The removal of any worst case scenario on both accounts was a huge relief and release from the mental anguish that had afflicted me. While I am grateful to all of the doctors and nurses I have had to meet in recent weeks, I am particularly grateful for the wonderful treatment I received, both medically and personally, from the exceptional staff of the NHS. While it is entirely possible that my experiences are not the norm, I suspect that it is much closer to the truth than the occasional horror stories which sometimes appear in the popular press.
The NHS is indeed an incredible and miraculous institution, which serves the British people well. Its successes should be noted and applauded, and while it is (obviously) less than perfect, governments would do well to interfere with it as little as possible, and allow it to be run for the health of the people. Any proposed changes should be thoughtfully considered over a long period of time, during which consultations with all the NHS' constituents should occur.
Under most circumstances I am quite happy to await an appointment with a NHS specialist. My experiences with the NHS have been mostly quite good, and I had never had to wait more than six weeks to see a specialist. With one of my body issues I was sent an appointment within two weeks. However, the second issue I was told might take between six weeks and two months, despite any (highly unlikely) "worst case scenario" being quite serious. While I generally felt okay within myself, and despite my head saying it would be fine to wait, my heart felt that sooner with a specialist was better than later. Consequently, I made use of the private medical coverage which is part of my employment remuneration and booked an earlier appointment via BUPA. This appointment was within a few days of my calling the BUPA centre.
The private hospital which I attended is on the same grounds as my local NHS hospital. However, the private hospital is much nicer in terms of decor and is much more modern. The NHS hospital has been around for many decades and has a touch of the Edwardian about it; it could certainly do with a lick of paint in places! However, despite the nicer cosmetic appearance of the private hospital my recent experience was much, much better with the NHS than privately.
In both cases I felt it took too long before I was seen. I understand that in a hospital things cannot always be timed exactly and that the unforeseen is a necessary element of medicine. But a quiet word from an administrator or nurse to the effect that the doctor or specialist is running a bit late would reduce a great deal of unnecessary stress from what to most patients is something of an ordeal: a venture into the unknown.
However, the key difference between the two 'sectors' was that the NHS staff generally treated me with humour, dignity and respect, and showed great sensitivity to my fears and trepidations, while the staff in the private sector generally treated me with great indifference, as if it was a standard business transaction. I did not like this mode of "bedside manner" especially when my health is at stake, and more importantly when my body is about to be prodded, poked, investigated and diagnosed in possibly invasive ways. My expectation was that this was the reverse of what we are typically inclined to expect.
In fairness to the private sector, I was gratified that only those procedures which were clinically required were requested. My experience and second-hand understanding of other private sector medical provision (such as in the USA) is that this is not always the case.
In the end, I was pleased to have essentially been given a clean bill of health by both sectors, with only minor amendments to my lifestyle (well, diet) required. The removal of any worst case scenario on both accounts was a huge relief and release from the mental anguish that had afflicted me. While I am grateful to all of the doctors and nurses I have had to meet in recent weeks, I am particularly grateful for the wonderful treatment I received, both medically and personally, from the exceptional staff of the NHS. While it is entirely possible that my experiences are not the norm, I suspect that it is much closer to the truth than the occasional horror stories which sometimes appear in the popular press.
The NHS is indeed an incredible and miraculous institution, which serves the British people well. Its successes should be noted and applauded, and while it is (obviously) less than perfect, governments would do well to interfere with it as little as possible, and allow it to be run for the health of the people. Any proposed changes should be thoughtfully considered over a long period of time, during which consultations with all the NHS' constituents should occur.
Friday, June 25, 2010
Treacherous scum!
I am a self-declared football fan. Although an avid supporter of my club, at this time all attentions are on the (English) national team at the World Cup in South Africa. So far, England have played three matches with varying levels of performance:
It is also of some concern that the player regarded as England's talisman, Wayne Rooney, has looked completely out of sorts. It is hard to believe that such a fantastic player with his phenomenal drive and ability is suffering from physical and mental tiredness after a long season. It seems much more likely that he is carrying an injury. How else to explain his poor 'first touch'? In which case, why does the manager continue to select him? Again this flies in the face of Capello's criteria for selection. A fit Wayne Rooney would be an invaluable asset to any international team; this Wayne Rooney looks to be more of a liability—a fitter player would be a better selection. That is surely why there is a squad?!
One of the best things about this World Cup, as with several recent international football competitions, is how it has brought out the best form of nationalism here in England (and elsewhere). The fluttering of England flags from house and cars has been a sight to gladden the heart of all true Englishmen and women. It is an outpouring of collective national faith and identity with the end being hoped-for sporting success (rather than war or imperial ambition as in previous generations). In the USA flying of the national flag has ling been a norm; in the UK and particularly in England our national fervour tends to me much more understated.
This outward nationalism was recently spoiled for me. We have been flying two England flags from the back windows of our car. Earlier this week, while parked in the Stamford Hill area of London one of the flags was taken, with damage to the flagpost itself. This vandalism, which occurred while my wife was at work, is simply unacceptable. As well as the damage involved, the taking of the national flag is (in my mind) an act of treason. It is hard to work out who the scum involved in this act might be.
It is hard to believe that such a treacherous act would be committed by anyone with any sense of Englishness. One can only hope that they will find their actions have consequences; that karma will come into play for them as it did for the French national team: having qualified via the "helping hand" of Thierry Henry, their ignominious departure at the end of the group stage seems to be just reward. It is something which no Irishman will be crying over, I suspect! I am hopeful that England will beat Germany on Sunday (not on penalties!) and go on to defeat the Argentines in the quarter-finals, and finally avenge defeat to Maradona's "hand of God". Karma may take some time to arrive on occasion, but let there be no doubt that it does arrive!
- Against the USA England played reasonably well overall. Many pundits were quick to pounce on the goalkeeping error by Robert Green which permitted the USA to equalise; my own feelings were that England squandered a handful of key chances which would have enabled a win. Not least of these was the one-on-one opportunity which Emile Heskey singularly failed to convert.
- Against Algeria England were a pale shadow of even below-par expectations. While credit must be given to the Algerian team, there can be no doubt that England seriously under-performed. A team of top-class players from England's Premier League—one of the most respected and watched leagues in the world—was completely incapable of anything approaching club form. The whole was so much less than the sum of its parts!
- Against Slovenia England played somewhat better, with greater conviction and better off-the-ball movement. The inclusion of a proven goalscorer with pace, Jermaine Defoe, made a huge difference, although more service from the wings would have increased England's scoring chances.
It is also of some concern that the player regarded as England's talisman, Wayne Rooney, has looked completely out of sorts. It is hard to believe that such a fantastic player with his phenomenal drive and ability is suffering from physical and mental tiredness after a long season. It seems much more likely that he is carrying an injury. How else to explain his poor 'first touch'? In which case, why does the manager continue to select him? Again this flies in the face of Capello's criteria for selection. A fit Wayne Rooney would be an invaluable asset to any international team; this Wayne Rooney looks to be more of a liability—a fitter player would be a better selection. That is surely why there is a squad?!
One of the best things about this World Cup, as with several recent international football competitions, is how it has brought out the best form of nationalism here in England (and elsewhere). The fluttering of England flags from house and cars has been a sight to gladden the heart of all true Englishmen and women. It is an outpouring of collective national faith and identity with the end being hoped-for sporting success (rather than war or imperial ambition as in previous generations). In the USA flying of the national flag has ling been a norm; in the UK and particularly in England our national fervour tends to me much more understated.
This outward nationalism was recently spoiled for me. We have been flying two England flags from the back windows of our car. Earlier this week, while parked in the Stamford Hill area of London one of the flags was taken, with damage to the flagpost itself. This vandalism, which occurred while my wife was at work, is simply unacceptable. As well as the damage involved, the taking of the national flag is (in my mind) an act of treason. It is hard to work out who the scum involved in this act might be.
It is hard to believe that such a treacherous act would be committed by anyone with any sense of Englishness. One can only hope that they will find their actions have consequences; that karma will come into play for them as it did for the French national team: having qualified via the "helping hand" of Thierry Henry, their ignominious departure at the end of the group stage seems to be just reward. It is something which no Irishman will be crying over, I suspect! I am hopeful that England will beat Germany on Sunday (not on penalties!) and go on to defeat the Argentines in the quarter-finals, and finally avenge defeat to Maradona's "hand of God". Karma may take some time to arrive on occasion, but let there be no doubt that it does arrive!
COME ON ENGLAND!
Friday, March 12, 2010
March musings: Bankers and other inveterates
March has arrived. My university is on Spring Break, but there is still no sign of Spring. Temperatures have moderated slightly from the overly extended cold spell, and crocuses are peering up slowly through the turf, fearful of a double dip winter in the event of yet another overnight frost.
As it is with horticulture, so it is with the economy. The "green shoots of recovery" can be seen poking their heads up through the wintry turf of recession, but there remain signs of economic frost. Fortunately, with a May election in the UK (in all probability) the government remains deeply committed to doing very little in the hope of not making too many mistakes and upsetting the electorate even further. While the UK government budget deficit is so large that it will require a dose of fiscal austerity, it may well be prudent for the government to follow the prayer of St Augustine who cried "Lord, Make me chaste, but not yet". While the hedonistic Greeks need a large dose of fiscal austerity before their country becomes entirely bankrupt, the UK for all its ills remains in a preferable situation. It is to be hoped that by the time a new government is sworn in in May, that the recovery will be under way more robustly than now, and the need to trim the fiscal deficit will not derail economic growth.
As well as the debate over when fiscal measures ought to be applied, the issue of bankers and their bonuses remains firmly on the debating floor. There is a natural sense of injustice when public funds have been (rightly) used to bail out the banking system, yet many people find themselves unemployed, asked to reduce their pay, and feel generally insecure in employment. For those who work in the banking sector to then continue to pay themselves "bonuses" essentially out of the public purse is immoral and unjust. When banks are underperforming and, in some cases, making losses, yet charging ever higher interest rates on loans to individuals and business while borrowing at historically low rates from the Bank of England suggest that regulation of banking needs to go deeper than at present. I would argue that it was wrong to have taken regulation of banks away from the Bank of England in 1997, and would like to see it returned, despite some arguments over there being a conflict of interests between the regulation of banks and conduct of monetary policy. Plainly, the evidence of recent years is that the FSA has failed spectacularly in its banking regulation. Like so many recessions, this one was built on the shaky foundations of over-zealous banking beforehand.
Taking a wider view, it is becoming increasingly clear that it is not only the banks who have taken risks which are proving to be unsustainable. In the (more important?) world of Association Football there are an increasing number of football clubs in debt to the taxman, and finding themselves in the courts or in administration for excessive debts. Of these, the most high profile case currently is that of Portsmouth. Despite having sold some £70m of players, the club still finds itself in debt of £80m, which it is unable to pay back. In the lower divisions clubs such as Chester and Southend are in similar difficulties, yet they have not over-extended themselves by bringing in big name expensive players from overseas (like Portsmouth). The problem here is not, as some would claim, the ever-increasing need to bring in expensive imports to compete; more simply it is a failure of football to run clubs in a sustainable manner like any other business. Until football understands this simple law of economics we are likely to continue to see more clubs in financial distress. Unless football adapts, especially at the lower echelons, then we will see increasingly fewer clubs in existence.
As well as bankers and football clubs, many individuals and businesses have also been bitten in recent years by the debt bug, and overextended. While on the one hand some blame might be attached to lenders (banks!) for permitting an easy supply of credit, the old adage of "caveat emptor" should surely also apply; in borrowing individuals and businesses need to learn to take a view of debt as something useful if handled sensibly, but still risky, and highly dangerous if not handled sensibly.
And on that note, it is time to see if the sunshine has yet made it's appearance, and if the crocuses have continued to poke their heads above ground.
Friday, February 05, 2010
And so it is February. One month of 2010 is now behind us, and eleven lie ahead. For me, the Latin phrase tempus fugit was never more apt, as it barely seems as if a few minutes has passed since we were welcoming in the New Year. If the adage that "time flies when you are enjoying yourself" is true, then for me January must have been a most enjoyable month. But the beginnings associated with a New Year are now well and truly over, and the current year is well under way.
We associate the New Year with hope and optimism; with turning points, sweeping away old trends and ushering in new fashions. Yet we continue to remain surprised when February comes about that last year's trends continue unabated without much sign of anything new. The official statistics tell us that the UK has now come out of its recession, but only just—less than 1% growth—while the US economy has roared out of its recession with a whopping growth rate of more than 5%. There has been hope for many months that the banks would turn their act around without the need for increased regulation, but this continues to remain a forlorn hope. Banks seem to be like leopards: unwilling or unable to change their spots!
to the tragic plight of the people of HaitiThe only change thus far has been the incredible global response on the part of "ordinary people" following the devastating earthquake. Of course, governments and, in particular, bureaucrats who are supposed to do the work of government ("humble functionaries" in Sir Humphrey Appleby parlance!), have done little to help and much to hinder any efforts to bring shelter, food and comfort to the Haitian people, for whom this earthquake can be seen as the latest in a long line of natural and political disasters going back decades. If ever the phrase "there but for the grace of G-d go I" was appropriate, it is applied to those of us living in the comfort of high-income economies especially when compared to Haiti.
It is hard to think of anything to brighten the remainder of 2010 in the perspective of what is going on in Haiti, but as the worst aspects begin to pass, many Haitians will start to look forward to this Summer's major global sporting event, the World Cup. While there remains the question
of how well the host country, South Africa, will fare the event itself is perhaps the brightest jewel in the crown of sporting events. Everyone must be hoping that South Africa will not find itself subject to the kind of terror which forced Togo to withdraw from the recent African Cup of Nations. The decision to then ban Togo from the next TWO African Cups seems to be nothing more than ignorant bloody-mindedness on the part of the bureaucrats who organise the event; one can only hope that karma will do its part to change their minds.
In the UK we can look forward to a change in government, with the general election likely in May. Even the staunchest Labour supporters must be thinking hard about re-electing a government which continues to erode traditional English freedoms—hard-won over centuries—with the flimsiest and continuously changing excuses. But then, this current UK government are primarily Scots, no great lovers of anything English, which apparently includes freedom. I hope that all British citizens will throw out this government and consign them, and their dictatorial attitudes and ID cards, to the dustbin of history. For all his flaws, Tony Blair was an infinitely better Prime Minister than the present incumbent. Unfortunately, the tone set by the government also sets the tone for how people conduct themselves in business and in schools and other institutions. We can only hope that a new broom will sweep clean all of the compounded forms of bureacracy, alleged "health and safety" regulations, and political correctness which has blighted the lives of ordinary people in the UK for almost two decades. It is time to demand a return to the freedoms which made this country one of the greatest and strongest democracies on Earth.
We associate the New Year with hope and optimism; with turning points, sweeping away old trends and ushering in new fashions. Yet we continue to remain surprised when February comes about that last year's trends continue unabated without much sign of anything new. The official statistics tell us that the UK has now come out of its recession, but only just—less than 1% growth—while the US economy has roared out of its recession with a whopping growth rate of more than 5%. There has been hope for many months that the banks would turn their act around without the need for increased regulation, but this continues to remain a forlorn hope. Banks seem to be like leopards: unwilling or unable to change their spots!
to the tragic plight of the people of HaitiThe only change thus far has been the incredible global response on the part of "ordinary people" following the devastating earthquake. Of course, governments and, in particular, bureaucrats who are supposed to do the work of government ("humble functionaries" in Sir Humphrey Appleby parlance!), have done little to help and much to hinder any efforts to bring shelter, food and comfort to the Haitian people, for whom this earthquake can be seen as the latest in a long line of natural and political disasters going back decades. If ever the phrase "there but for the grace of G-d go I" was appropriate, it is applied to those of us living in the comfort of high-income economies especially when compared to Haiti.
It is hard to think of anything to brighten the remainder of 2010 in the perspective of what is going on in Haiti, but as the worst aspects begin to pass, many Haitians will start to look forward to this Summer's major global sporting event, the World Cup. While there remains the question
of how well the host country, South Africa, will fare the event itself is perhaps the brightest jewel in the crown of sporting events. Everyone must be hoping that South Africa will not find itself subject to the kind of terror which forced Togo to withdraw from the recent African Cup of Nations. The decision to then ban Togo from the next TWO African Cups seems to be nothing more than ignorant bloody-mindedness on the part of the bureaucrats who organise the event; one can only hope that karma will do its part to change their minds.
In the UK we can look forward to a change in government, with the general election likely in May. Even the staunchest Labour supporters must be thinking hard about re-electing a government which continues to erode traditional English freedoms—hard-won over centuries—with the flimsiest and continuously changing excuses. But then, this current UK government are primarily Scots, no great lovers of anything English, which apparently includes freedom. I hope that all British citizens will throw out this government and consign them, and their dictatorial attitudes and ID cards, to the dustbin of history. For all his flaws, Tony Blair was an infinitely better Prime Minister than the present incumbent. Unfortunately, the tone set by the government also sets the tone for how people conduct themselves in business and in schools and other institutions. We can only hope that a new broom will sweep clean all of the compounded forms of bureacracy, alleged "health and safety" regulations, and political correctness which has blighted the lives of ordinary people in the UK for almost two decades. It is time to demand a return to the freedoms which made this country one of the greatest and strongest democracies on Earth.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)