Putting Money In The Right Places Not Where Your Mouth Is

A study by IAB labour market has concluded that Germany will not suffer the same scale of job losses as the UK. The main reason is that Germany pumped money into wage subsidies which supported employment.

It's more than that. I sit here having spent this and the last few weeks in Germany and it is clear there is a profound difference to the way in which Germany has spent money to stimulate its economy and how the UK has. There are obvious things - Germany and France are pulling out of recession and there are signs that it is sustainable. Germany put money into wage subsidies for firms to help stop widescale, automatic redundancies which has been the first port of call in the UK in response to the recession. Germany and France put around €5bn into the car scrappage scheme to stimulate sales rather than dither over helping mothball factories and then go to scrappage in the UK at a paltry £300m. Angela Merkel pledged €6bn into the wage subsidy scheme but she fought, along with France, the wholesale and unlimited bail out of banks much to Gordon Brown's annoyance in the G20 meetings. The results have been impressive with no huge increase in unemployment and an early exit to the recession while Britain reels at 2.4m unemployed (some say the real figure is 6m) and this will peak at over 3m before the year ends - as yet there is no sign of the end of the recession for the UK.

Germany got it right - we didn't.

Don't React, Think

Another of my New Scientist articles caught my eye. Notice how Government's over react to situations rather than think them through - the soundbite is better than the diligence in most cases as it sustains or wins votes. But you only have to look at Britain's reaction to swine flu to understand we have committed huge resource to try to cover something which could have been contained far more easily and with less cost, and we have simply saved no more lives by doing so. That is one example - another would be how, in the face of a rail disaster we pour millions into rail safety. The result is that we have no more rail disasters in 2008 over 2007 saving a few lives. Meanwhile around 279 deaths happened as a result of trespass and suicides on the rail network in 2008, around the same amount as 60 years ago.

In other words, we tackle the headline, not the real problem costing far more.

We could get onto road saftey but that is its own nightmare deserving far more airtime while all the heightened security, a war with Iraq and spend after 9/11 did not stop 7/7 occurring under our noses. There is now clear evidence that George W. Bush actually got briefed on a threat to hijack US planes just a month before 9/11 and his recation was, 'You have covered your asses, now go.' The subsequent spend on two major wars has got us no further in making us safe - if anything, we are far worse off.

So back to the point. While Germany put specific money like €10bn into education which has to be spent by the end of 2010 on refitting schools or new interactive learning techniques to lay a foundation for the future, Britain chose to put huge sums into bank bail outs without any idea how much was required or when it would stop. In fact, we knee-jerked into taking Northern Rock into public ownership before we had even time to think and then plunged incredible sums into banks and a further £175bn into Quantitative Easing without any idea what the real results would be. Germany and France were right on their game - specific sums for specific effects and no wanton bail outs with incalculable effects.

Guess who is in the better position.

But there is far more. Eminent economists like Kenneth Rogoff argue that we have thrown money at the problem of the banking system with little thought, especially when it comes to regulation. You do not have to be a genius to realise that banks worldwide are now using easy and cheap loans from Governments to fund incredibly high risk debt swap and the likes as they did before but now under the umbrella of taxpayer guarantees should they fail again.

What does it do? Obviously, it will bring vast, short term profits which banks will want to pay high bonuses on - and guess what we have got? Rogoff goes into far more detail but basically he highlights the knee jerk reactionism by the US and UK over Northern Rock and Lehmans as examples of reacting without thinking which has caused a cascade of similar, more profoundly expensive mistakes.

Time and again, we see that Governments react with short term thoughts that have major effects in the long term. Germany and France campaigned against some of the stupidity Britain went for and they have been the quiet, unassuming winners because they put their money into the exactly the right places to get the desired effects.

At the time, Merkel was seen as the ditherer while Brown was seen as the superhero flying from country to country to save the world even if he did inexplicably go through Brazil. Merkel has proved to be right, choosing the thoughtful and precise approach. Brown has a dog's dinner on his hands thanks to his knee-jerk responses to crises. The difference being is that Merkel knows pretty much how much it has cost to get out of the recession - Brown has zero clue and we will pay yet more as banks behave in the same way as before the crisis.

Regulation and reformation of the financial system was the key if £billions were to be thrown at it. We have none and we are faced with the sight of banks paying a thin layer of superstars bonuses that make it look as though we are rich again. Instead we are paying off debts that will last until 2032.

This is not an issue between employer and employee as Darling would have us think, this is about what banks are really earning, what they can sustain and what we have paid them to survive. We are the 'Masters of the Universe' but we need politicians to enforce it. It's our money, after all.

Don't Fear The RIPA?

For once Jaqui Smith has shown some good judgement rather than leaving the TV remote control with her husband, although you might accuse her of conflict of interest. At the launch of a Government review of the Regulatory of Investigatory Powers Act (RIPA), she has called for Councils in England and Wales not to use surveillance powers to target minor offences.

For the avid readers of this blog, you will have spotted that I have mentioned such powers before and some refer to them as a 'Snoopers Charter' as wider powers are due to come in force soon. However, Councils have been accused of using the powers of RIPA to investigate such minor offences as dog-fouling, people putting their bin out on the wrong day and those who fib about their address in order to send their child to a better school.

I assume that Jaqui Smith might also be concerned that someone may actually film how often she actually uses her 'Primary Address' in future.

The Good, The Bad and The Ugly

We have better (or worse) than 1 camera per 14 people in this country which is more than any other European country. Surveillance is a way of life but we are told the extra cameras in our streets are there to protect us from crimes and terrorism, and we are all for preventing another 7/7. The pity is that we did not, nor the attack at Glasgow Airport - but at least we had bird's eye views after the events.

It is disheartening to know then that Councils are using such powers to catch perpetrators of such minor offences. The problem is that Council people have certain jobs to do like collect money to balance the books so if a camera is handy they'll use it. To the rate payer, it's both comforting to know that these workers care about our money and exasperating at the misuse of crucial resources supposed to stop REAL crime, although as a dog owner, fouling is pretty heinous.

RIPA is meant to regulate the monitoring of emails, phone calls and internet use, covert surveillance, use of informants or undercover agents and access to electronic passwords or encryptions.

Think about this long and hard. Do we really think it is appropriate for anybody OTHER than security forces and police in this country to have the power to access to such personal data? Do we really think that Council workers will respect the privacy of those who are actually found to be committing no offences?

This is not a 'Snoopers Charter', this is downright stupid use of valuable resources. Council workers now have free use of security cameras to catch people parking illegally, using loading zones to stop and pop into the newsagent to get a paper, to drop off an invalide, if they overstay a parking meter, if they park in the wrong area or a wheel touches a line. We must be stark raving mad to let unqualified, often outsourced contractors to be able to redirect cameras for such offences which are merely used to collect more cash.

The issue at stake is more than our privacy. I accept there needs to be a balance between access to our private information and security. But are you seriously telling us that Council workers and similar job functions should have the power to surveil us with such wide ranging powers? Do you seriously think that they can be trusted with such private information? Then again we think Big Brother is entertainment.

As the famous Roman graffiti said (and forgive my translation capabilities), 'Who is watching the watchers'.

Safety vs Privacy

I watched an interview with Bernie Ecclestone, the F1 magnate, with Eddie Jordan on Sunday and he described his own reaction to Max Mosely as 'over the top' when he had demanded that he resign over the affair of his filmed session with dominatrix prostitutes. He said that 'Max was now fighting for the rights to privacy for all people'.

Indeed. There are different laws for the rich, as we have seen in many cases. Mosely not only got compensated for the film being shown on the internet but he is now taking his case to the European Court of Human Rights claiming that whole affair has 'lost him his dignity'. Some would claim that if you did not have any dignity beforehand then you can't lose it but maybe that's a little unfair on poor Max. Certainly, the outrage has been turned on Ecclestone and his own sense of morals and ethics have been reversed after a severe talking to from Max.

Power and money should never be underestimated.

What About Joe Public?

For mere mortals like us, we have our privacy breached daily. Despite being on Telephone Preference Service (TPS), I still get a call a day from some nebulous call centre with the delayed start before they try to confirm my name and then I get some spiel before I cut them off. Whether we like it or not, TPS is about as effective as an MP's Expense Rule Book - if you want to bend the rules, you'll find a way.

So what of the new EU Directives which come into force next week? As of Monday, your ISP or telecom firm will be storing details of all your emails and net phone calls - not the content as yet but who you are communicating with. It comes in the wake of the London bombings and several countries like Sweden have outright refused to implement the directive while Germany is mounting a challenge.

Civil Liberty whingers feel this is another erosion of our privacy. I have reported on more extensive plans being discussed at high level which extends to phone calls and all internet communications including social network sites. In reality, the knowledge of who is communicating to who is of little use as in a world of pseudonyms and avatars on the web, knowing 'Terminator' is communicating with 'sweetliljools' is not too helpful.

The content of the communication is of more value in the search for terrorists, so we are but a short step away from everything being monitored.

The Arguments

Of course, you only need to have one bombing to justify such an invasion of privacy, just like a speed camera can be erected on a street where one death has occurred - in my main street it was the death of a dog which triggered its installation. In Britain we already have worse than 1 camera per 14 people and this was not much better when 7/7 took place. In fact, the bombers were clearly identified as they boarded a train at Luton and then on their way into the Undergrounds at Kings Cross. Seeing them did not prevent the bombings - the only way they would have been stopped was if they had omitted to buy a ticket.

There's the rub - the technology currently looks for exceptions. If all our data is to be stored then the only way it can be filtered is to first search by demographics and then to search by keyword, hoping that 'death', 'glorious victory' and 'Osama will be pleased' crops up. Or indeed the user names 'Osama_cave' or 'Allah_Fist' are nicknames used.

The argument by whinging Liberals is that this is a short step to full invasion of privacy. They are not wrong. Most surveillance cameras have been erected in city centres in the name of security and public safety. Laws have now been passed that councils can use the same cameras and images to spot people who park illegally, overstay their ticket or use a parking space for a two minute drop off. Number plate recognition catches them out and fines are sent by post - no matter what your excuse, you are guilty. The extension of this thought is that many agencies and commercial ventures will be very interested in your data and so before long lots of them will have access to our details and our most intimate thoughts and communications.

If you think that is scaremongering, it isn't. It means that Max Mosely might have to find another method to arrange his visits to prostitutes, it means that for all of us we should think twice about who and why we are communicating. As a for instance, the moment you register for the Electoral Roll, your information goes public. From that moment onwards your new address and details of who lives there is in the public domain. Junk mail comes flying in, unsolicited phone calls abound and your information is visible to any number of firms who pay for it. You have not ticked any boxes allowing them to have access to this but they do. You cannot get a mortgage without having joined the Electoral Roll so don't even think about not doing it.

Our information is freely traded today and there is little we can do about it. It's a precious commodity and knowing what we communicate about is even more precious. You can bet your shirt that taxes will arise associated with our information - that's one certainty.

But then again - what price Freedom? Surely erosion of our privacy is paramount in the search for terrorists? What do we have to hide if we are not terrorists? Max Mosely is showing exactly what we have to hide. His 'crusade' on behalf of all of us is to stop what is happening and saying 'what I do in privacy is my own business'. Max is campaigning against Google Street View which shows images in streets where he might be visiting 'paid for ladies', against firms that might pick up his internet booking of a good spanking by a lady with a paddle, against the use of cameras anywhere to show his private acts in public. The natural extension of what Max is doing is that he is saving us all against the tyranny of invasion of our privacy just so he can have uninterrupted sessions with 'Madames'.

The counter argument is on dodgy ground if we leave it in the hands of Max Mosely or, for that matter, in the hands of whinging Liberals who no one takes seriously.

Just today, Jaqui Smith is agreeing that 'chip and pin' technology will be incorporated in our Identity Cards and so can be used in our standard transactions at ATMs, for instance. This is claimed as a benefit - but this means our identity and all the information stored on the card about us will be freely available to banks, credit card companies, shops, internet companies - the lot as well as scammers and thieves.

Why would you want to do that? It is a wholesale public airing of even our biometric data - the possibilities are endless. It would be far easier for spouses to catch their other halves watching porn movies but would it stop terrorists?

The Jury's Out

One thing I do agree with the whingers on is that too often we see our data grabbed under the auspices of security and only to be made available to wider services and eventually the commercial world. Even cool technology like Google has its drawbacks as the lady who tried to escape a violent partner found out - the world is watching her and anyone can access it.

Far be it for me to whinge about safety - I would not wish a single injury or death by a terrorist if there was a way to prevent it. But as the 7/7 and JC De Menezes cases showed, we had a birds-eye view of the events and the people involved and it did not prevent the atrocities. It is what your intentions are and how you propose to use the data collected that determines whether terrorism or crime will be stopped.

Today, we have a track record to show that state and local government priorities are not centred around countering terrorism and crime but collecting more money from us. Until that is beaten out of the heads of the individuals involved, then I am against further invasion of privacy.

Whingers, make a place for me.

Thorny Issues

Let's get something straight at the start - I thought at the time and still do that David Davies was an egotistical prat. His puerile display of self gratification when he resigned his seat and forced a farcical re-election campaign was a mighty waste of time and money and an abuse of an arguably daft political system. The only decent outcome is that he remains in the political wilderness.

However, if anything, it detracted us all from the thing he was supposedly trying to highlight - the erosion of civil liberty by the extension of the detention period of an unaccused individual to 42 days. I believe strongly in civil liberty and habeas corpus but when it comes to Terrorism it becomes a massive grey area and the security of the public is paramount. If it stood as a general point then I would have supported him.

'Known Knowns and Known Unknowns'

Rumsfeld's famous phrase is worth repeating. We live in a world which has changed dramatically since the day the world stopped on 9/11. I vividly recall the events unfolding before me in sheer aghast horror and relived them in the excellent film Flight 93. I recall equally being on a train into London when 7/7 occurred and worrying how my wife was in her office in Spitalfields unobtainable - then seeing the carnage that had been wrought not by foreign terrorists but from citizens of our own. The world had changed beyond all recognition.

So when the US response came in Afghanistan, I had no quibble. But when we jointly invaded Iraq and John Charles De Menezes was gunned down in cold blood on a train in London, I believed we had changed the world for the worse, not the terrorists. Blair always said that it was the terrorists who did it, they started it, but I do not for one minute believe that terrorism was on George W Bush's mind when he ordered the invasion of Iraq and I don't think that terrorists train or compel police to be incompetent.

Since these events we have constantly been held in a state of low level terror, drip-fed information designed to keep us on our toes and to agree with policy. We have let Guatanamo go by as a necessary method to treat indeterminate people on non-sovereign territory while Abu Ghraib was put down to over zealous individuals rather than a Supreme Command that basically said do what you want to these people - they are worthless. A lack of understanding of a complex situation has caused terrible loss of life in Afghanistan and Iraq and it came from the dreadful lack of planning and knowledge displayed by leaders like Bush, Blair, Brown and Rumsfeld.

When interviewed about a year ago, a US Marine in Iraq was asked by a reporter, 'Why are you here?' He replied with total honesty, 'Because of 9/11.' Yet Iraq and Saddam Hussein by Bush's own words had nothing to do with 9/11.

This has been the problem with the escalation of world tension. Even our own incompetent Intelligence Agencies who fell to Alistair Campbell's leadership and produced the piece of shocking fairy tale that was the basis of our decision to invade Iraq, have said that by invading Iraq we would cause more terrorism - because we have now given anyone with a gripe against the West a focal point to do so, a raison d'etre and a good career.

Why Should We Think Again?

I bring this very tough subject up on two counts. Firstly, and most importantly, amid all the lambasting about Government incompetence over its handling of the Financial Fiasco, the 145th British Soldier died yesterday in Afghanistan since 2001. He was from the First Batallion of Rifles and he died in Helmand Province. He followed Marine Darren Smith who died of his wounds on Saturday while being transferred to Camp Bastion.

While I query why our soldiers are being used this way, I think they are the best and bravest people on this earth. They are dying on our behalf and there is no greater sacrifice. Remember that today for the sake of the families of those two men and the 143 others who have died in Afghanistan alone.

It will put the rest of our troubles into perspective.

The second reason I bring this subject up is that Dame Stella Rimington, former Head of MI5, has spoken out against the West's policies. "The US has gone too far with Guantanamo and the tortures. MI5 does not do that," she said. "Furthermore it has achieved the opposite effect - there are more and more suicide terrorists finding a greater justification."

She has previously been critical of the government's policies, including its attempts to extend pre-charge detention for terror suspects to 42 days and the controversial plan to introduce ID cards. "It would be better that the government recognised that there are risks, rather than frightening people in order to be able to pass laws which restrict civil liberties, precisely one of the objects of terrorism - that we live in fear and under a police state," she said.

Her comments come ahead of the publication by the International Commission of Jurists which is chaired by Former Irish President Mary Robinson who said, "Seven years after 9/11 it is time to take stock and to repeal abusive laws and policies enacted in recent years. Human rights and international humanitarian law provide a strong and flexible framework to address terrorist threats."

The report contends that the US and UK undermine the framework of International Law. Personally I think they repeatedly break International Law in the name of Freedom and Democracy - the two virtues we wish to bring to the worlds they invade. Our example of what Freedom and Democracy is about is pretty questionable.