The Leveson Inquiry: A Mirror on Newspapers or Society?

Perhaps the most ironic and humbling aspect of the Leveson Inquiry is that the public themselves become the media cohort; the journalists and reporters are now open to attack and ruthless questioning.

Various celebrities have already stated that their lives were made hell through the media onslaughts that employed gross tactics of misconduct: from bribery to pursuit. Even more concerning then, the idea that not only were these everyday, public figures under attack, but the average man, who may have once hit the spotlight, or have been an obscure relative of someone famous, was equally in question.

The role of social media is to inform, not to violate.

The fine line between freedom of the press, freedom of speech in its entirety and invasion of privacy is surely a daily trouble for those in the journalistic profession: but the need for certain degrees of integrity remain ever more valid and ever more lacking in practice.

With the upsurge in trending on the twittersphere and sharing en masse to facebook ‘friends’, news is instantly leaked online and the press feels it needs to maintain this competitive edge.

Whilst a number of the news stories may very well have concerned areas of public domain, the use of this illicit material is somewhat derogatory to the victims and to the standards of the pront publication itself.

Inquiry chairman Lord Justice Leveson said that the freedom of the press could not be undermined in its role and function as a symbol of democracy across the country. However, the role of the court case should involve a close examination of what regulations are in place for these companies and who is in fact in charge of guarding the guardians of free speech.

Although the report will give its official verdict in one year’s time, the approaches and stringent management of sources need be in place with immediate effect.

One may sympathise with the fact that newspaper print is a shrinking industry and the stakes are highly competitive: however the dependence on sensationalised journalism is highly irresponsible and breeds a culture of moral bankruptcy. How are citizens of Britain expected to maintain levels of privacy across facebook, twitter, google plus, and other outlets, when the example given by these enterprises preaches shock value consumption?

Moreover, these actions implicate the nation, as consumers of the product. We are the people who demand this extra detail, this personal insight, for our own satisfaction. Our modern prerogative to galvanize and submerge ourselves in the fantastical worlds of those more ‘successful’ than ourselves leads to certain isolation: we only feel pleased should those in the spotlight cause scandal or fail to meet expectations.

How far then is the media misconduct a sign of internal corruption or external vices of humanity?

Delors Created A Monster: The Euro Currency.

In economic downturn, any politician’s own trivial punch at the current state of the financial crisis can really knock confidence and cause extra downturn and problems.

But this has not phased Jacques Delors, one of the main architects of the single European currency, the Euro. Perhaps his honesty is the wake up call needed for future generations to never again be so flippant in their approach to international banking and funds. Perhaps it’s just a last jibe: an “I told you so” move that satisfies no one but himself.

However, the politician spoke out last week, stating “The Eurozone was flawed from the beginning”.

These are no doubt so bold and troubling words, at a time when the Eurozone has never looked so increasingly fragile. More countries turn to the Markozy central block for loans and bailout plans in an web of dependency that is surely already too far stretched. With other key members such as Spain and Italy, not thought of as in danger until quite recently, defaulting, there is a huge lack of faith in the value of the Euro, and its shared unit only serves to weaken those central powerhouses further.

Why the sudden backlash from Delors? As head of the European Commission from 1985 to 1995, he played a key role in the process that launched the euro and his comments effectively bring about questions of its true validity.

Delors claims that the single unit is not itself at fault, but “a fault in execution” by those who saw its implementation, who did not consider the economic backgrounds of certain member states. He continued by adding that “the finance ministers did not want to see anything disagreeable” and so instead of focussing on kinks of the single currency, they blindly promoted its benefits regardless.

Perhaps his most poignant move is to admit that those, like the British, who objected to the Euro certainly “had a point.”

In fact, a jump (or at least jump by today’s variable standard) was seen in the pound vs the Euro trading after this admission was made. Trade rendered £1 worth €1.17-€1.18. Not that this necessarily signals a growing strength in the pound, but rather a worse Euro. And Britain should remain wary of this, for its markets are key traders in the Euro currency. Our own economic growth is dependent on the fiscal balance sheets of Europe, even if we like to disagree.

On Friday, German Chancellor Angela Merkel said Europe was working towards setting up a "fiscal union", in an effort to impose budget discipline by members.

Yet, this surely would have been a logical launch issue? In some regards, it seems the lax approach to the Eurozone was deliberate, creating a free for all market, wherein all countries could reap the rewards. Bearing the consequence was never at the forefront of decision making.

And if the Euro should collapse, where will blame rest? With the French and German governments who prop and support and continue to make crucial decisions for the future of their economies? With the lesser countries who added to the imbalance of outgoing money? With the lack of a central union from the beginning?

Delors doesn’t have a definite answer, but sees all the moves of leading parties as “too little, too late”. But then is this the fault of Delors in his initial approach to the Euro itself? The history books will decide.

Autumn Statement Readjusts Economic Vision.

Amidst continuing economic misery and the prospects of further strike action, the Autumn report from George Osborne was quite the focal point of the week inside parliament, no matter what happened throughout the rest of the capital and the country.

With repeated promises of grand strategies and new hope, PM David Cameron has made several hints in recent interviews that this would be an announcement which would once again set Britain along the path to recovery and financial stability.

As expected, the statement did little to improve positivity, yet it is difficult to deduce how far there are failings in this report or its predecessor.

Shadow chancellor, Ed Balls, reacted to the speech by declaring Osborne’s plan was in tatters and concluded that it had been “a colossal failure”. And whilst the announcements in the House of Commons were far from a success, a colossal failure appears somewhat extreme a branding.

A shift in direction has been long overdue: and by employing such a course of action, the current government may have been able to steer clear of certain failings that are current plaguing the Eurozone dominated by Merkozy.  

Indeed, as expected and reported heavily on earlier in the year, forecasts have shrunk and growth is expected to be minimal for the coming two years (which is all the more concerning considering the Olympic Games should provide a boost that is not at all evident in the statistics). Add to this the fact that instead of reducing the deficit, the government is set to borrow an extra £111bn over the course of four years: a projector that means it will have spent more than Darling did previously.

However, it is difficult to condemn the move as liberally as Balls challenged. Without a change in tact, there would have been serious risk of falling into the Eurozone problems of cuts vs stability.

No doubt, the balance between the two is difficult to attain, but this statement goes some way to redress the issue. Money has been released for key areas of growth: infrastructures such as motorways, rail systems and housing complexes all benefit as well as several key industries. The idea is to promote growth that will outlive excessive government spending. By starting the process, it is hoped a momentum of trade and commerce will begin to build and the government can gradually ease spending.

So whilst this means a temporary boost in spending, it remains the long term objective to reduce the deficit. It is interesting that the government has now altered its plans so as they appear a mix of election policies from Labour and the Conservative. Whilst the advocation of more spending is present, there are still harsher cuts.

Whilst the Chancellor accepts that this method actually means more pain now and more pain for longer, it appears that he has chosen this revised plan because, in fact, it will move at a gradual and steady pace: without sudden shifts, confidence will once again overwhelm markets as long as they continue to show signs of future prosperity.

In his retorts, Mr Osborne pointed out that Labour is the only mainstream party in Europe promoting spending extra money. Moreover, Mr Balls’ statements appeared somewhat unfounded as he said the deficit was still too high and yet more needed to be spent.   

      

 His comments, whilst sweeping, could in fact be a sign that this is a move that could save the current government and win them an extra term in office come 2015. There are certainly times of austerity ahead, but economic collapse here seems slightly more distant than it does in centralised Europe… at least for now. 

George Osborne's report at a glance (BBC)

  

Strike One.

Yesterday’s mass strike, the largest in Britain since the nicknamed ‘Winter of Discontent’ in the 70s, was branded “a damp squib” by the Prime Minister David Cameron.

However, walking around my locale in York, I couldn’t help feeling a certain incredulity at the statement. Living in a town known for its middle class, Conservative electorate, even here the picket lines were drawn in force. Reduced bus services, fewer libraries, doubtless there were significant reductions in emergency services. And of course, the swathes of 9 year olds wondering the streets at one in the afternoon were sign of the backing of the educational sector.

The strike over pensions is both justified and seemingly fool-hardy. For those who have been contributing to their retirement schemes for some decades, the idea of moving the goalposts is simply undermining to a true sense of fair game: life decisions may have been different, money spent either more shrewdly or liberally. In harsh economic times, the dependence on a pension, its access and ability to enjoy one’s later life is rather an oasis amidst political turmoil.

Of course, the only way by which to ensure there is sufficient circulation of various economic funds is to push back the pension age, due to the growing number of older people. I do not mean to make this sound a point of begrudgment: rather, those who have created growth for UK markets and contributed to society should indeed be at liberty to enjoy their lives as they wish: not constrained to a job all the longer.

In fact, the government’s propositions would ensure that the average UK man had barely a decade to live once he had retired. But, statistics tell us those in cities could expect even less time: a Glaswegian male averaging a mere 69 years.

Yet, with an expanding retirement bracket, the current system is undoubtedly under strain, as slowing birth rates and economic decline generate less available money.

As such, over two million people from various public sectors took to the streets, with various marches and demonstrations affecting the capital. Whilst the government says there is no room for negotiation, and their offer is fair, should the stand offs continue to cause such disruption, outlines other than the changes proposed for 2015 will undoubtedly be announced.

The strike is estimated to have cost a minimum of £500 million. Such money is a vital asset not only to the economy, but to the ailing pension schemes that need be funded. As such, the government only hurts themselves in continuing with this action.

However, parliament officials are divided themselves. Labour, usually the political party most associated with the social class movements, have not supported the movement publically and quite a large number of their members crossed the picket lines yesterday and entered Westminster regardless. Although Ed Miliband continues to have furious debates with the PM (see yesterday’s Prime Minister’s questions) he only suggests the calls of strikers need be understood. Not supported. And the ambivalent feel is obvious across a number of high profile people due to the inevitability for change

Never one to miss an opportunity to make some left field remark, none other than Jeremy Clarkson took to the spotlight to argue that all strikers ought to be executed in front of their families. Yeah, nice one Jeremy. Work when the boot fits, but not if you have to relocate Top Gear despite an unnecessarily huge wage.

Today marked the first talks between top level union officials and government members since the 2^nd November: yet this does not necessarily represent any progress. Rather, hearing how far the strikes were successful will determine further strategies for the likes of Unison, Unite and TUC. The general secretary of the TUC, Brendan Barber, said if agreement could not be reached, further action could follow.

Yet the risks are huge. Economic impacts, social welfare problems, the ability to keep a public on the side of Union agenda. Even when the dispute ends physically, there will remain huge dissatisfaction. Since Britain finds itself in a position of job cuts, spending cuts and social divisions that will last well into the 2020s, even a recompense of a ‘fairer’ pension cannot abate the need for action. August’s riots are proof enough of the need to be weary of all social fragments.

David Cameron told ITV1's This Morning: "Striking isn't going to achieve anything, particularly while there are negotiations ongoing." However, there weren’t negotiations ongoing. Cameron’s own ignorance may in fact paint his own government the damp squib in this battle of wills. He continued "The job of the government is to try to explain to people calmly and reasonably how we are going to come through this", and whilst his philosophical airs are all true, his lack of guidance to a resolution equally demonstrate the flaws of his parliament.

The only fair way to push back pensions is to do so for those not yet 16. But why should those without a parliamentary vote be punished? Are pensions a case of human rights then and if so who has the power to determine a justified balance between returned wage and the biological clock?