The Investigatory Powers Bill

The UK has just passed The Investigatory Powers Bill. It will become law once it receives the Royal assent – a formality.

It enables a wide range of public bodies to access the records of every person in the UK who connects to the internet. Internet service providers are obliged to keep a record of every site that their users access over the past year.

It’s the modern equivalent of the authorities accessing the record of the library books that a person borrowed.

I am not concerned with whether the authorities can access a person’s predilections for pop music or porn, prison breakouts or paedophilia.

I am, however, concerned that a Government or its agencies can access the records of interesting people. By that I mean that GCHQ could construct an algorithm that splits people into two camps.

There are those people who are interested in trivia – in the diversions of life – and little else. A Government can ignore those people – they aren’t going to object to much of anything.

And then there are a smaller number of people who have a broad range of interests. With the Investigatory Powers Bill the Government will know who its ‘thinking’ opposition is.

Of course, it is not this Government I am worried about. This Government is fair and open. But a more fascist government. If that came to pass they would have all the tools they needed to weed out the potential opposition.

Ah, but this is far fetched. Except that it has happened in other countries.

It can always happen here.

Sanguine From A Distance

Protesters are out on the streets in the USA saying that Trump is not their President. They oppose his racism, his misogyny, his isolationism.

I think Trump may be racist, maybe not. It is hard to tell what he is. He has a general disdain for everyone.

But the racism in the country exists and at this time in history in this election it is in part a simple reaction to the difficulty that some people had in accepting that there was an intelligent and caring black man in the White House.

They just had to vote for someone who would extinguish that truth and the President’s legacy.

On NewsNight last night, the historian Simon Schama said the result was a calamity for democracy and would increase racism and anti-semitism.

He was agitated in a way I have never seen before and rarely see in any public figure.

I couldn’t help but think of people smuggling information out of Germany to tell the world about the holocaust, and shouting into the wind.

And I am thinking that there are checks and balances to prevent a slide to a nastier USA. But with the Republicans controlling all three branches of power, how strong are those checks?

Economy First

Trump says he wants to lower taxes and invest in infrastructure to increase wealth across the nation.

Those proposals are not that radical. Lowering taxes and spending on infrastructure can increase the flow of money and stimulate an economy.

And although people might disagree over how to achieve it, there is consensus in that almost everybody wants increased wealth.

So on the economy, you’ve got a united country.

The challenges are over things he has said where the country is not united, and particularly on abortion and Roe v Wade. And the test of that will be decided on the composition of the Supreme Court.

So my guess is that Trump will be slow to appoint a new judge.

He will push to get some consensus about his presidency by increasing or giving the prospect of increasing wealth across the board. Then he can turn to the thornier questions.

Really though, no one believes his position on very much at all except to look after America and let the rest of the world go hang. So I wouldn’t be surprised if his choice of judge is more liberal than people expect.

Sanguine From A Distance

See how sanguine I am from a distance?

See by contrast how opposed I am to Brexit and how much I want the decision to leave Europe overturned?

Or maybe it is that I just don’t see a way back from four years of a Trump presidency, whereas there are routes back to the EU?

Lessons From History

I have always said that when people look back and say of the dark times in Europe that it could never happen again, they are blind.

It was ‘now’ when those things were happening, and people rarely see the speed with which the wildfire of racism can spread.

I have believed for years that the USA is a beacon to the world. Oh sure, it’s an imperfect beacon. But it has saved Europe from itself more than once.

What now? We’ve known for years that there are two Americas that eye each other warily. Whither now, America?

Visions Of The Future

9.17pm here in the UK on US election day. The results should be coming in within a few hours and I am nervous. It feels like a lot of people are holding their breath.

I am taking a step back, reminding myself that being of religious disposition, I believe that the world ultimately is in good hands.

Which is not to say that some things cannot be very painful, for indeed they can as history has shown us. In short, I hope that Hilary Clinton is the next president of the United States. I cannot imagine the insanity of Donald Trump as president.

People can be so nice. When they are in pain over someone else’s troubles, or when they display kindness to someone, people can be so lovely.

At the same time, they can be like a wounded animal with its leg caught in a trap, dragging themselves around unaware of the damage. It is so poignant.

And one of the killers of kindness and appreciation is cynicism and ridicule. And so many people have been aggressive and intolerant over the past few weeks and months. The hungry mob mentality in people has been awakened. There is a tipping point and history has shown that it can tip very quickly.

So against that background, here are few words about something I have thought for many years

It will be a Tuesday, around 11am. He (or she) will get up from his desk in the office and walk out because he isn’t going to do this any more.

He is going to stop the merry-go-round of the office and this way of doing things. He sees the whole structure and he isn’t going to be part of it any longer. There has to be a better way.

He will walk out onto the street and his heart will pound when he sees that many, many people are there on the street, standing like he is standing. They will look at one another, wondering – Where do we go now?

Is This It

People are scrabbling to make sure Hilary gets in. Or they are trying to get Trump in. A few will vote for third parties because they don’t like either of the main choices. Many will regret that Bernie Sanders didn’t make it, because they like the promise that he described. But for most of us, we don’t have time to discuss niceties or alternative visions of society. The prospect of our imperfect candidate losing is too horrifying. The times don’t allow us that luxury.

But if we take the time to think it through once the crisis is averted (as hopefully it will be) then plainly there is something wrong. And equally plainly, Trump is not going to put it right.

I made up a saying that I use for my own reference. It is a shorthand way of describing a reality that strikes me repeatedly:

It is that it is difficult to see that the world is not made of marmalade when you’ve got your head stuck inside the marmalade jar.

What I am referring to here is that neither candidate seems to be offering a vision of an alternative society that gets to the root of the problem. But in the face of the need to make a choice, we must make the best of it and try to move things as far as possible in the right direction.

So what is the problem?

The problem that is not being discussed is that we are living in mass societies geared to consume, divorced from community, living anonymously in urban landscapes knowing that for the most part we are inconsequential to the way the world moves along.

And there is something more.

In the sixties the counter-culture movement sensed there could be a better way. Of course it could simply be that what modern society is doing is exactly that – working towards a better way.

Perhaps we are working towards a society where people feel they are leading meaningful lives. It could be that it doesn’t look like that to some of us because it’s hard work and a messy business.

We know that progress is two steps forward and one step back. But huge corporations, with what seems like an unholy amount of cash and power, makes it feel like its two steps forwards and three steps back. And then we will never move forward.

People will put up with a lot and withstand a lot of privation if they know that we are all in the same boat. But when some are rich beyond the dreams of Croesus and we see them laughing at our institutions and the value of our very selves – then there is no society. There is just a fractured mass of people crying at the injustice.

But there’s something deeper than this that needs to be addressed.

Everyone who claims to be a moral person and who has more than his or her neighbour has to make a daily ritual of justifying to themselves why they are right to deny the claim of their neighbour. It can be as simple as the homeless person begging on the street. It can be as simple as the car I drive and the car you drive.

But we are nothing if not adaptable. We rationalise and create an equilibrium in our minds. And then something comes along to really upset our communal equilibrium. And it is the hundreds of millions people beyond the perimeter of fortress Europe and fortress North America. Those refugees and economic migrants have upset our balance. We feel guilty and oppressed at one and the same time.

How are we going to make a fair society when we know that by accident of birthplace, people beyond the fence are starving?

But equally while we have to start pulling in the net – bringing more people out of poverty and into comfort – we have to do so without insisting that the price they pay is to die slowly in an office.

Making Eurozone Hay Whatever The Weather

In a 2010 article in the Guardian on the financial troubles in Greece, the Economics editor Larry Elliott referred to the 1997 IMF bailout of Thailand, South Korea, and Indonesia. He says:

Asian nations found another way of protecting themselves against speculative attacks on their currencies: they used the devaluations that were part of the IMF bailout packages to export their way back to growth.

The result was that they amassed huge foreign exchange reserves, which they recycled into western financial markets, leading eventually to asset price bubbles. The countdown to the crash of 2007 started right there.

In other words, countries devalued to make their exports more attractive.

That is not possible for countries within the eurozone.

Imagine a country contemplating setting up a common currency with a number of other countries, and the deal was that they would all stump up so much per month to enable them to buy supplies at cheaper prices.

And imagine that one of them spent its income on fancy tables and chairs, parties and high incomes for its workers.

You can imagine how the others would be pretty upset.

If they had been smart, they would have agreed at the outset not to spend more individually than they took in as income.

If they had been really smart, they would have given each other access to their books so that they could all see whether there was a risk that one or more of them was going off the rails.

If they had been super-smart, they would have given a veto on each other’s chequebooks so that none of them could write cheques for more than they could afford.

So why were the Europeans so outraged at the idea that they should introduce this power and tread on each other’s sovereignty a bit?

It took a default by Greece to make the Eurozone countries wake up and even contemplate agreeing to contemplate this.

Hidden Benefits In Default

While Germany was powering away and building up its economy, its banks (and French and Belgian banks) were lending to Greece and Italy even though they knew that Greece and Italy were sub-prime economies.

And they made good interest out of the loans. And then when things got tough, they raised the interest rate to compensate for the risk.

But they created the risk themselves by lending in the first place to an economy that they knew was not paying its way.

When the game was up and the fun was over, Germany and France imposed budget restraint on Greece; the budget restraint that should have been agreed and mutually imposed from the start.

Why wasn’t it? Why is there not a code of practise among nations?

The answer is surely that too much money was being made and no-one in the governments of the rich Northern European nations were able to or wanted to stop their banks making hay while the sun shone.

And when the Greek default loomed? Germany and France and Belgium didn’t say – Ah well, it was good while it lasted.

Instead they got public money from across the richer countries of the eurozone to bail out Greece via the ECB.

Who thinks that is a correct view? Professor Otmar Issing, the ECB’s first chief economist.

In an article in the Telegraph of 16 October he is reported as saying he saw:

the first Greek rescue in 2010 as little more than a bailout for German and French banks, insisting that it would have been far better to eject Greece from the euro as a salutary lesson for all.

The Greeks should have been offered generous support, but only after it had restored exchange rate viability by returning to the drachma.

Where Does This Leave Britain

A couple of weeks ago, Mervyn King, the governor of the Bank of England prior to Mark Carney was reported as saying in an interview with Sky News:

During the referendum campaign, someone said the real danger of Brexit is you’ll end up with higher interest rates, lower house prices and a lower exchange rate, and I thought: dream on.

Because that’s what we’ve been trying to achieve for the past three years and now we have a chance of getting it.

So, four months into the Brexit referendum vote, where are we?

The FTSE is holding up because the UK economy is fundamentally strong.

The pound has fallen because hedge funds have taken their property investment portfolios out of the UK.

And the future? The future is uncertain because it’s the future.

If Trump gets in / If Russia and China take a more aggressive stance together over missiles in South Korea and Eastern Europe / if China confronts other countries more aggressively over sovereignty of the South China Sea / if Ukraine is annexed by Russia / if Brexit ever happens…