The Sound of Music

Nestled neatly amongst the largest names in designer brands and sports cars, just two weeks ago I found a flagship Virgin Megastore half way down the Champs Elysees Boulevard. Like a glittering beacon of music industry past, the humongous store sat adhorned by thousands of bustling Parisians all dodging in and around the doors. I take a few intrepid steps towards this seeming mirage: I can’t quite believe that there’s still an operational Virgin Megastore around. With a certain sense of nostalgia, I remember how this would normally be one of my first and last stops on a trip into Manchester. Certainly, it’s a mecca of my childhood: the endless stacks of CDs and the perilous piles of DVD boxsets. It seems somewhat surreal, which is all the more confounding, because I know I can browse the selection at any HMV when I return home.

Nipper has become a symbol of HMV record stores worldwide.
Image Credit:  Lienhard Schulz, Wikimedia Commons.

But this treasured retail paradise is now threatened too. With the announcement of HMV’s administration, there is a huge question mark sat poised above the music industry in the UK at least. HMV is not just a store for music, film and game: it is a British icon and institution. The comic logo of a dog playing with a phonograph is an endearing image renowned worldwide, and branded the company something more than a faceless corporation, but a music shop that was ready to be alert, be active, be intuitive with the music scene.

From irrevocably changing the face of British and world music in helping to launch The Beatles, to today offering free intimate gigs with huge artists up and down the country, HMV has always been at the forefront of the high street music consumption. And some may argue that it isn’t a surprise that this store, which maintained high prices in the face of strong supermarket competition and emerging internet markets, has gone bust. In fact, some may think that it should have happened sooner.

HMV once had rivals in the form of Virgin, Zavvi
and Woolworths. Now, all of these illustrious music
stores look set to disappear from the high street.
Image Credit: Captain Scarlet, Wikimedia Commons.

Yet, consider that HMV still retain close to a 40% share in the sale of physical CDs on the high street. Without the fierce competition of high street giants, such as Zavvi, Virgin Megastore and Woolworths, HMV remained an oasis, a safe haven of the CD back catalogue. Whilst prices of chart and new releases are frequently a couple of pounds dearer than supermarket counterparts, there is no denying both the reasonable pricing and the huge selection available from yesteryear. Without sounding too much like an independent record-store hippie, HMV had become synonymous with the idea of rediscovering music, just as much as it presented the opportunity to hear new music. The catalogue is not only impressive for a physical store, but in cities, such as Manchester, the HMV is a virtual Aladdin’s Cave, hoarding gems to suit all tastes.

Perhaps without the competition of Zavvi and Virgin Megastore, HMV became too complacent, and believed too much in their monopoly on the market. But considering that Woolworths, until now possibly the largest brand to collapse under the crisis, was a leading retailer in DVDs until it folded, it is hard to believe that HMV would not extrapolate some lessons. More than any previous administration, this is probably the most significant of changing markets, and the most evocative of a ruthless industry.

And this ruthless legacy sparks potential for an even more sinister future. As the internet giants that are Amazon and Apple come to dominate the entire market, inundating consumers with rock-bottom prices at marginal profit, the high street fails. With the escalating problems at HMV, the nation’s last specialist record chain may soon face rolling the shutters one last time.

The ups and downs of HMV.
Image Credit: Kantar Worldpanel.

As fewer physical stores are open, the decline of job opportunities and the rise of further unemployment is only further aggravated by the fact that without any competition, the internet stores will soon be able to demand the same premiums that these stores once charged. Only excepting the fact that less VAT will be paid back to the UK, leaving an even greater whole in the financial heart of the country which only ten years ago welcomed the advent of internet shopping as a second coming for economic gains.

More than this, nothing quite beats the record shop. This is why independent stores have gradually made a comeback recently, competing more and more strongly each quarter. While the fall of HMV may spell a boost in custom for these shops, it will certainly see a real shift in the pace of digital takeover. Not even a decade ago, physical sales were more than double what they are now, whilst digital was still struggling to break the mainstream market and was only warily accepted by a few. Should a buyer not be found the endangered chain, not only is the future of the high street uncertain amidst the collapse of GAME and Jessops, but the very presence of the physical CD is undermined.

His Master's Voice: HMV's flagship store on Oxford St.
Image Credit: Getty Images

Without a major store in which to browse an extensive collection of artists and albums, the supermarkets’ charts will become the only token existence of the CD. Even here, there tends only to be CDs available from within the Top 50: if you want to find releases from before the past six or so months, there will be little choice but to turn to download. Personally, this strikes me as a killer blow to music. Just as some may say that nothing sounds like a vinyl, the CD, more than the cassette before it, is proof of the adaptability of music. Sharing and mixing, ready to be played in the car or the house, offering a backup against computer malfunction or meltdown, the CD is versatile. I find myself swizzing an album on Spotify before buying: if it’s something I know I’ll want to come back to decades from now, I buy the CD.

My favourite albums are all owned in the physical. There’s something about being able to hold a CD, point at an iconic cover, finger the inlays of someone’s work, slip in the disc to something that transports you to a time, place, mood, invoking memory and nostalgia. With the close of HMV, this very aspect of music love is also threatened, and it was the very thing that made the store unique. HMV might not be the first place to look for a bargain, but it is the first stop for a boxset bonanza, a CD binge or a gaming back catalogue. Without it, the versatile disc may not be considered versatile much longer.

A Greek Revolution?

Greek President Karolos Papoulias has faced difficult circumstances and situations in his short period in power in Athens.

Yet, it seems that his short spell as President may end sooner than had been hoped by international officials as last-ditch talks with various party members to secure support appear to have been fruitless.

Attempts to form a coalition and avert a further set of elections are Papoulias’ primary concern: even higher than economic issues. Should the Greek populace be put to the vote again, there is sure to be all manner of civil reactions from apathy to unrest.

Certainly, the Greeks will have lost all belief in the abilities of their leaders to govern and manage the state properly and efficiently. At best, politicians can hope for a resolution between party factions, for any further public disgrace could spell the end of Greek’s current political system.

In the event of an election, whilst a few may look with disinterest on a failing succession of Presidents and parties, the recent demonstrations and violence that have spread across the country suggest the possibility of widespread anarchism and potential revolution.

Of course, extremist positions that promote Greek exit from the Eurozone appear all the more enticing whilst faced with current alternatives. Riddled with debt, a persistently shrinking economy and mounting unemployment, Greece is certainly not the hotbed of industry and business that marked the new millennium.

Last week, a majority of Greeks voted for parties that want to rip up the country's bailout agreement with the European Union and International Monetary Fund (IMF) - including neo-Nazis.

The biggest winner was the leftist anti-bailout coalition, Syriza, whose share of the vote more than tripled and who describe the austerity imposed by the bailout as "barbaric".

Yet, the main problem that any incoming government could face is that there is no official guidance on a country exiting the EU. No, the naïve, bright brains behind the introduction of the EU did not foresee any member country wanting to leave the zone and so did not prepare for such an event.

Therefore, Greece could essentially issue a statement to Brussels stating its intent to leave the EU and then default on its debts. Its second default, that is.

The economic repercussions across both the EU and Greece however could be catastrophic as further member states could decide that restrictive measures on their economies are no longer suitable. As such, contributors such as the UK and Germany lose billions of euros in funds that have been pumped into these nations.

Meanwhile, a new Greek government could not guarantee the stability of any currency that it introduces or predict the volatility of markets towards the new position of the country.

Greece would probably have to impose capital controls to prevent all the money leaving, much as Malaysia did in 1998 after the Asian financial crisis.

So in the best-case scenario, Greece would have no buying power, and everything would be expensive: extremely expensive.

However, the play would be based around the hope that with such a weak currency, the economy would grow rapidly.

Whilst this route would be expensive and painful, it might appease those voters who feel manipulated and controlled by central authorities in Brussels who they believe have no appreciation of their situation. If the hypothetical economic reinvigoration were to pay off, to pardon the pun, it could be the lighting spark for further action in the EU zone and render relations difficult across the EU, ushering in a new era of European co-operation, or lack thereof.

Redefining Europe?

In a historic moment, this weekend saw a new president elected in France. But this is not a simple handover from one leader to another. French politics has been shaken and the results are clear to see.

Francois Hollande received around 52% of the vote to wave Sarkozy from office. But Hollande rise to President-elect was anything but smooth: yet perhaps the most overwhelming hurdle was the inherent psychology of French citizens, apparently predisposed in favour of right-wing politicians.

Sarkozy’s Union for a Popular Movement (UPM) party was a centre right organisation, and ever since the 90s, the French presidency has exclusively belonged to the right. More so, there is only one blemish on the right’s record of power since 1958: Francois Mitterrand, who served the country as president from the 80s till the mid-90s, is the only left wing leader in more than half a century. On top of that, Sarkozy is the first French president not to have won a second term in over thirty years. Certainly, the statistics were stalked in the incumbent head-of-state’s favour.

Therefore, whilst the media may be drawing attention to numerous bits of luck on the part of the incoming president, and a multitude of misfortune on the part of the departing, there was first and foremost a seeming political allegiance, a political bond, between president and people that needed to be severed.

Perhaps the legacy of Mitterrand still holds coinage with voters in the European country. After all, Francois successfully deployed a substantial economic turnaround, made sweeping technology changes, supported various activist movements and carefully balanced the power of France within Europe and the world. His period of power produced a France that was not only one of the strongest countries at the close of the twentieth century, but in its strongest position across the century as a whole.

As such, in times of similar economic failings, a possible identity crisis and continued French resistance and demonstrations against French rulings, Hollande appears a candidate very much in touch with his people, dubbed Francois II (signifying him as the second coming of Mitterrand). Other headlines proclaim him as ‘Mr Normal’.

Indeed, French presidencies of the late twentieth century were either held by old, hardened politicians, or apparent upstarts who had rose through their party ranks too quick for sufficient experience.  Here is an elect who not only has the fine-balance of experience and youth on his side, but is so seemingly straight-forward, if not a little reserved, that he has won the French people with his honesty and genuine persona.

A front-page "Letter to Mr President" by Francois-Regis Hutin in Ouest France wishes Mr Hollande "good luck". The paper says that "we count on you to arouse the dynamism of all the French... to reconcile the French, to help overcome the split between the included and the excluded, young people and old people, town and country, workers and pensioners, rich people and poor people."

Of course, this tackles the failings that are laid at the steps of Sarkozy’s regime. He was either despised as a friend of the rich by the left, or seen as the man that broke his word by the right, or by most as the man that promised reform, began to make steps in that direction and stopped far short of completion.

These issues need be addressed by the new President for sure. His period in charge will prove pivotal certainly to the shape of the French twenty-first century, if not for the most part of the next millennia. Hollande will govern a country where, as the historian and economist Nicolas Baverez says, "By 2025, we will know if France still ranks as a leading nation in the world."

Yet despite the new appeal of Hollande’s practicality and placidness, his offer of change and consolidation, there is remarkably little difference between the centre left and centre right candidacy campaigns. The deficit will be tackled slower under Hollande, and with more dependence on taxes, but otherwise, there is not too much that would rock the boat about this leader.

His trail, though igniting people with the promise of a zero deficit by 2017, has left little impression of the long term policies and positions of the President: rather, people have been swept along with the fervour of change, the promise of Mr Normal. After all, Hollande appeared less focussed on austerity measures that were favoured by his predecessor and Merkel. And with their policies only bringing about rising unemployment and debts, the public support has suddenly dried up for their strict measures.

All that is sure of Hollande’s term is that his decisions will carve out the path of future France: either rising like the beacon of the Eiffel from the storm of the Seine, or reaffirm dwindling power that would leave French surrendering to the mercy of Germans and Britons alike for the third time in a century.

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.

Democracy Occupied.

The closure of the Occupy London camps is a closing down of democracy.

Police and baliffs in charge of evicting the protestors moved in on the St Paul’s site last night, February 27^th, and continued to clear the area of demonstration this morning. The move comes following a court ruling to have the camps and occupants disbanded.

Appeals to the decision were denied in a move that only adds to the gravitas and reasoning behind the goals and aims of those in charge of the movement.

Occupy London set up shop against capitalism in October last year and has remained a permanent fixture just a little way off the London Stock Exchange for more than four months. Following the example of protests in America, the sit-in phenomenon took off worldwide, and had established itself as part of the landscape outside St Pauls in the capital.

However, the clearing of the sites took little time last night, as many simply moved on as a large force of police closed in on the area. Some were resolute and built a small structure to stand their ground, but within a few hours, this too was dismantled. All that remains of the proud symbol of anti-corporation greed is being ‘cleansed’ in a deep clean. I say ‘cleansed’ because the root of the issue has not been dealt with.

Mayor Boris Johnson took the opportunity to say that he is “glad that finally the law has taken its course”. It would appear that the mayor oversteps his position as a leader of a free government, by suggesting that this prevention of free demonstration is a positive act.

Within the first week of its occupancy, the demonstration had been contained and caused little, to no, disruption in the area: instead blending into the background, heckling peacefully at professional businessmen and women who were the cause of their misery.

London’s trade remained undisrupted.

Now, with the removal of tents and sleeping bags from the St Paul’s steps, but a claim that “The corporation made it very clear that they have nothing supposedly against protest”, there is all the more ammunition to mount daily assaults on the London Stock Exchange area.

Moving the protesters from their camp simply provides the motivation for the activists to move onto the next stage of campaigning, more disruption, more force and presence outside the buildings of the exchange. After all, the only part of the protest with which the law took umbrage was the make shift settlement and sanitation.

Daily demonstrations provides more of the furore and direction needed to ensure a more noticeable effect occurs, a more positive change. After all, if the people working in the Square Mile are disrupted daily, so trade is impacted.

Although there is nothing of the physical camp remaining, certainly its ideas and ideals are still bubbling with zeal around the streets of the capital. The greatest achievement of the camp came in its early days, when there was realisation that those regulating the money, the trade, the jobs, could be wrong-footed and undermined. If the removal of the camp is to reignite this spark, then the authorities could have unwittingly done more harm than good for their cause.

Whilst I do not agree with the removal of the camp, as it brings with it a sense of oppression, or underhand court dealings, there was certainly for the most part no cohesion between public and protestors. Within ten days, the public interest had dimmed and the camp was not necessarily speaking for a majority.

With undefined goals, the next step for the campaigners should be to regroup and outline some aims before continuing. Whilst the group had noble sentiments in the time of credit crunch, recession and high unemployment, there was no long-term solution to capitalist flaws.

Even if the Occupy movement was not wholly formed, it is the closure of camps that is the most striking in a country of free speech. As a society broken by capitalist misdemeanours, even should we not agree with what is said, we should defend the right to say it.

Downgraded European Economies is a Punishment for Germany.

As the Eiffel Tower sits overlooking the Seine in the centre of Europe’s capital of love, it appears that Standard and Poor, the international credit rating agency, have fallen out of love with the French capital.  

Downgrading of nine European Union economies last week did not come as a surprise, per se, but remained a bitter blow, especially to the second largest Eurozone economy. Rating changes for nine countries highlights the need for new austerity measures, before introducing growth plans.

Perhaps this is the reason Britain remains unchanged in S&P’s poll: Cameron’s government moved quickly to introduce cuts and the fact that these measures have been undertaken without direction has been rewarded from the worldwide monetary agency.

Without doubt, Britain’s position is far from safe: while the short term consequences see a gain in GBP strength and trade prospects on an international scale, the intrinsically linked economies of Europe are a fragile set of dominos. A single collapse at this stage of the crisis could prove the kindling for an explosive series of economic shortcomings and bailouts.

Indeed, plans introduced to cancel 70% of Greece’s debt last Friday are but moves to buy time for the Euro and all related economies.

Whilst it is believed the move may help Greece to start to implement new means of recovery that will slowly abate the spread of financial interdependence, the wiping of such an astronomical figure from the central funds of Europe is equivalent to pulling the plug on a vast resource of wealth. With fewer countries classified AAA, the missing money could prove to be nigh on impossible to replace, meaning that it would undermine the significant advances made in industry over 2011.

Should such an econopocalyptic event pass, it is likely to trigger debt that cannot be undone within our lifetimes.

France’s image as one half of the economic megaforce upholding the Eurozone has now been shattered. Sarkozy’s right to stand on a podium alongside Merkel has been removed: former foes had been presenting a united front as the 17 countries that use the euro face their biggest crisis since World War II. Now, whilst a blow for the president, concerns should shift from where France went wrong to where Germany now finds itself.

Economically, Germany is on the precipice before the abyss. All of Europe looks to its €211 billion ($267.32 billion) contribution to the Eurozone rescue fund as a source of saviour. Although Luxembourg, Finland and the Netherlands all maintain their AAA rating in addition to Germany, the mother of the Rhineland is able to boast a donation to the Eurofund that is more than treble that of the other three combined.

Germany is once again isolated in the centre of countries that threaten it: no longer the supposed threat of invasion, but the threat of siphoning all the funds possible for ulterior economic issues.

Relative strengths and weaknesses of key economies have been realigned by the changes and Germany becomes more vulnerable to credit crisis the more that its own funds are charged with the duty not only of small periphery nations, such as Greece and Portugal, but large central blocs, as France and Italy.

Any increase in bailout costs comes from German pockets and this appears to be something that the German electorate may not bear with merely a customary grumble too much longer. This could lead to potential referendums on the amount Germany puts into the fund, or even on the Euro itself.

However, the cost of breaking up the Eurozone itself could be catastrophic as billions of Euros are lost in every area from trade to administration and all problems in between. In fact, the relative weakness of the surrounding economies at least makes German products more competitive, which means Berlin earns more capital.

All the same, the opinion of the voter would depend on the projection of their outlook. Germany, likely to reassert itself as the strongest economy before European counterparts could still see benefits from a break in the single unit currency within a decade or two. Markets would always seek the hub of enterprise and exports offered by the central state.

The risks of both cases are, unfortunately, war. Ironically, the Franco-German alliance now enters a turbulent stage wherein the two countries sit on the crux of imposing a disaster on the rest of the economy, continent and world.

Should Germany continue to support its Eurozone counterparts, there may emerge a sentiment of anger and resentment that would see a war break out due to a lack of appeasement. On the other hand, if Germany were to break its ties, it could grow strong amidst a state of turmoil and seek further expansion in order to capitalise on new found economic prospects. And who could say that such a route would be devastating – the application of German stratagems could provide economic balance further than its current boundaries. Or should Germany leave, other European countries may feel abandoned and declare action as a last ditch effort to prove their own flailing might in the face of German capitalist gains.

After all, one of the main contributing factors of the Second World War was the sheer amount of economic wealth that was drained from Germany by other European countries. But then, when have we ever learnt from history?

Sparkling over the night waters of the Seine, the Eiffel Tower appears an oversized, abandoned Christmas decoration, spreading little warmth to the heart of Paris, threatening to be washed away by the tide of debt on which it is founded.

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)

  

An Obvious Economic Announcement...

Never one to point out the obvious at rather a late stage in proceedings, Prime Minister David Cameron took to the podium at the CBI conference to announce that the current economic climate and crisis in the Eurozone were having a “chilling effect” on the UK economy.

Now, this fact was probably widely re-acknowledged around about six months ago; the world having watched continued Greek financial woes and the growth of Italian instability. Add to the melting pot the downgrading of American credit and the shrinking of forecasts for growth and most people were under no illusions to the state of the economy.

However, we must certainly thank the Prime Minister for pointing out these obvious facts that are supposed to be being addressed firmly by his government: alas, apparently to no avail.

He blamed the current lack of growth on the continuous string of bad news about economy matters, but did not announce any ground breaking scheme himself. Rather, this task is dutifully left to burden George Osborne’s shoulders next week.

Whilst the PM is under a great deal of pressure to reverse the position of Britain amidst these financial troubles, surely highlighting the problems and not proffering any solution himself is but counter-productive. 

Although some may say truth is the best tactic, these facts were already wide-held public views: their reaffirmation by Cameron only serves to further down-hearten British workers, contractors and entrepreneurs and shake the foundations of faith in both commerce and the government.

Mr Cameron also told the conference: "Everyone agrees now that in the past Britain's economy had become lopsided: too dependent on debt, on consumption, on financial services.” Unfortunately, the continued upholding of a policy of cuts is doing nothing to reverse the trend, but rather stagnate the economy.

This concept that it takes money to make money and debt must preceed profit only just now appears to be clicking as the PM is set to detail housing schemes, but the projects are somewhat received only to mild appreciation: the economy cannot take much benefit from such a slow burning enterprise.

Perhaps, rather than continuing to be a staunch coat and continuing to plug policies that are not working, Cameron and his faithful Clegg should consider redressing their approach and apologising. It could be the making of a great economic boom in the long run. New tactics worked for Roosevelt. Was no one making notes? Did no one pay attention in history class?! Would his approach hurt the support of the Tory party too much and appear like socialism? Probably, and that why politics no longer involves the public right; it’s just a game of opposition policies…