Economics Straight and True

Earlier this week, it became official that the UK was in a double dip recession; an announcement that had been softened somewhat by previous data that suggested the UK economy had once more begun to shrink.

Now there are calls for the government to alter their course of action so as to encourage growth before the new dive becomes irreversibly damaging to trade and economic prospects.

However, austerity measures already in place took some time and considerable budget planning to come into force and it is highly unlikely that a swift change of course will come by the end of the month, or summer for that matter.

No, the government will cling to a belief that whilst many other countries, both across Europe and the globe as a whole, were reassessed and had their credit ratings slashed a few months ago, Britain was spared in part thanks to these current policies.

It is no little truth. Of course, the trend of growth, strength of the sterling and increasing import/exports all had a swaying hand on the decision, but a key factor in the assessment process is the perceived overall management of a country’s finances. Fiscal priorities from Westminster over the past twenty-four months have been second to none and, whilst the hard medicine approach has drawn parallels with the unpopular measures of Thatcher, now (as then), there is still an overwhelming feeling of support for the government as they remain resolute in their course of action.

Indeed, polls at the beginning of the month, following the budget report indicated drops for the Conservative party, but these were immediate back-lash reactions and not measured voices who had considered the situation.

A situation that is, at best, precarious. Sudden shifts in strategy could in fact damage the overall economic efforts. Initial reaction to another statement of new measures would see widespread panic throughout the City that would in turn spark a weakening pound and a possible rush on banks.

Not to sound overly apocalyptic, but the trust that the public and businesses place in government policy is a fine balancing act. Even the slightest hint of disruption could threaten the stability that has slowly ebbed its way back into consumer and business life.

Moreover, with Spanish unemployment at a new high, continued Greek unrest, and further burdens on Germany as AAA lone ranger of the Eurozone, the British need to put support behind government efforts to consolidate progress so far achieved. With the costly problems facing Europe, our markets need to continue to prosper, or else both pound and euro will undoubtedly ride down the abyss together, so inherently linked are the two zones.

Whilst the budget measures are unpopular and few benefit from the changes, it would be unwise to declare the policies as inappropriate and unsuitable to the current climate. The phrase “we’re all in it together” still rings true in ears across the country: only in a resolute front of support can businesses emerge from the staggering financial crises and people become more liberal about their expenditure. Riots like last summer show the potential fragmentation that lurks underneath our society, and similar disruptions seen across mainland Europe in country’s with governments weaker than our own are testament to the need for a straight and steady course, perhaps even to protect us from ourselves.

For Whom the Road Tolls

Yesterday, Mr Cameron unveiled his latest masterstroke in a bid to ease the congestion that suffocates our transport systems like dull, London smog.

The PM called for an urgent readdressing of the nation’s road networks, suggesting improvement through an increase in the amount of private investment.

Without doubt, road investments, along with improvements to rail facilities, have been sparse and transportation networks no longer remain efficient means of commuting people and products to their destinations. Motorways in particular frequently reach saturation points and widespread jams are the norm around London, Birmingham and other metropolitan centres.

In Europe, many motorways have only two lanes and yet continue to carry their traffic with much less disruption than in the UK.

With a certain tenacity for issues under the umbrella of ‘infrastructure’, Cameron detailed the need for repair as urgent to combat “decades-long degeneration” and necessary in order to "build for the future with as much confidence and ambition as the Victorians once did".

Among the problems highlighted, environmental and economic issues were brought to the forefront: with increased delays, more fuel is burnt and deadlines are increasingly missed or deliveries received late.

It is estimated that some £7 billion a year is lost due to mismanaged and under-invested motorways.

However, the cost to the public is already rocketing because of these problems. As only grazed by the prime minister, more time spent in traffic jams and slowed motorways increases fuel consumption and combined with rising petrol prices, this ensures that more and more journeys are  costly for the consumer, requiring extortionate refills in motorway service stations. Asking for even more public contributions to right these problems is bound to cause an outcry of sorts.

Whilst privatisation then appears a reasonable measure (and something that all major government parties have considered in the past), how would this affect current motorists?

Indeed, many people may question the increasing sum payable for road tax if the schemes were implemented. With company and foreign investment becoming accepted, the tax would appear an unjust means of continuing to solve the nation’s debt crises. Since there is already no direct correlation between road tax to the government and parliament’s use of these funds on road investment, the hallmark of ‘road tax’ would merely become a phantom cloak for the government to claim addition state funds, without having to invest any amount of the sum back into the road infrastructure.

Besides, when privatising and adding tolls to roads, this incurs additional costs to families at a time of recession. Whilst the funds would generate new links for businesses, the average middle-class family may not be able to afford wide-spread highway men fees, to pardon the pun. The M6 toll, opened in 2003, remains an uncongested stretch of motorway because many families would rather save the £6 fee expected to use the stretch of road.

The stumbling block of these debates is that the British public hate privatisation and, with the water boards aside, there continues to be great resistance to any movement deemed to be taking power out of the hands of the British public.

Yet, the government could see forecasted figures of around £100 billion being injected into the chancellor’s funds by consequence of the move and therefore, it is rather popular to a cash-strapped Westminster.

However, with the prospect of foreign investment comes further concern. Many are sceptical as to how much investment would be pledged versus the amount of profit netted by the companies concerned; this a particular trouble after Cameron compared the schemes to water privatisation which saw massive profits for businesses.

Essentially, whilst investment is needed, there is no measure of how those in charge could be held accountable. As the prime minister insists there need be vision like the Victorians, the Englishmen of the late 19^th century would never have considered selling the country’s infrastructure in such a jigsaw manner, but rested on a sense of nationalism and pride that appears forgotten.

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?