Quid Pro Quo

In a recent article in The Times, Daniel Finkelstein has suggested that the basis of human co-operation rests on reciprocation, you do something for me and I'll do something for you. Quid Pro Quo in effect. Such a position may lean more towards a classical liberal and conservative understanding of human nature that tends to see human beings as creatures concerned more with self interest than the pursuit of altruism. His view of human nature underpins his interpretation as to what may be agitating a group of people to the extent that they are prepared to camp outside St Paul's in late autumn to protest about greed.

His suggestion is that the protests are not really driven by a popular anger at bankers getting rich at the behest of others. What is at the root of this tented expression of confused agitation is a perception that the bankers have taken out what they haven't put in. It is this sense of unfairness that runs as a common thread through the occupy wall street movement and many of their fellow fly sheet comrades in London, Paris, Seoul and Los Angeles. It has been assumed for sometime that the economic crisis of 2008 -2010 and the current global financial problems can be laid at the feet of the bankers and many commentators and journalists are holding them to account. However, is this wholly fair?

The common idiom of 'it takes two to tango' would suggest otherwise. It was a lack of liquidity that drove the financial system into the credit crunch and the brink of armageddon in 2008. The liquidity that was pumped into the markets following 9/11 soon found it's home in many diverse financial instruments ranging from the so called ninja mortgages (no income no asset, no problemo), the 120% mortgages of northern wreck, highly leveraged public companies and disastorous mergers and acquisitions such as RBS take over of ABN AMRO just before the bubble burst. These loans were sliced, spliced and sold across the global credit markets as securitised investments with the blessing of the credit rating agencies. As with any loan, there are two counterparties and both are responsible for honouring the covenants.

British household debt, including mortgages and unsecured loans, is well over a trillion and it is not the fault of the bankers that ordinary Britons are up to their eyeballs in debt. The banks supplied the loans, the debtors purchased them, America sneezed and the world caught the economic lurgy. As a result, loan covenants were dishonoured, losses were incurred across the financial spectrum and liquidity dried up. In the first half of this year, 696 homes were repossessed each year and Lloyds TSB has £38 billion worth of exposure to homeowners in negative equity. It is a similar story in America, hundreds of thousands of homes were created in the boom years on the back of loans that people were not able to pay off, hence there have been over 1 million seizures of domestic property in 2010 and a crisis in liquidity that has not been known since the days of President Herbert Hoover. The losses that the banks sustained from the sub-prime crisis stemmed from a failure of responsibility amongst those people who took on loans that they knew they could not honour and a failure of a banking system that should have honoured competent diligence and had far tougher regulation hoisted upon it.

Yet as the boom times rolled, no one questioned the mantra of so-called light tough regulation, easy money and an end to boom and bust. As long as the party continued and the world got punch drunk on easy credit and high yielding investments then who cared? The years of easy credit, tax cuts by the Bush administration and it's foreign wars and stupendous state spending by European governments reflected one thing and one thing only; your quid for my nothing. It is not just the bankers who were responsible for the global financial turmoil of 2008 - 2010, we all were.

Obama and Karimov, an unlikely alliance?

In recent months the Obama administration has agreed an aid package worth $120 million with the Government of Uzbekistan on top of a fee of $60 million for use of an air base in the south of the country. In the years since the end of the Soviet Union, President Islam Karimov has ruled Uzbekistan with corruption and fear that have resulted in significant human rights abuses.

Martha Brill Olcott commented in the Washington Post in 2005 that, "Poverty, corruption, repressive security agencies, price controls and steep taxes have created a disgruntlement that has nothing to do with religion". On 14th May 2005, thousands of protestors gathered in the main square of Andijan in the Ferghana valley to protest against rising prices and a government decision to turn the main mosque into an art gallery. The response by the Uzbek security forces, who had been recieving training from the US military was clinically brutal, 850 people were shot dead. One shopkeeper who was present that day described women and children falling like grass when cut with a scythe. Those who tried to flee across the Uzbek-Kyrgyz border were shot by security forces. The former British ambassador to Uzbekistan accused the President of having ordered the deaths of two political oppopents by boiling them alive.

In Afghanistan the US mission is to destroy the Taliban, should they blow themselves up on the streets of the US, introduce democracy, human rights, gender equality and financial stability. Yet only a couple of thousand miles away the Obama administration is financially supporting a vile and corrupt dictatorship that his little or no respect for the values that the US is attempting to intorduce to the people of Afghanistan. What then is the reason d' etre behind this contradiction in US foreign policy in Central Asia?

It would appear that even though the Cold War is over the old adage of, 'He may be a son of a bitch but he's our son of a bitch' is bankrupting the morals to US foreign policy in this arena. One only has to remember American support for the likes of Ngo Dinh Diem of Vietnam in the early sixties, a rather brief flirtation with Pol Pot and the Khmer Rouge during their war againt Vietnam and the rise of General Pinochet of Chile. Indeed Karimov is a son of a bitch, but given the convenience of an airfield in close proximity to the Afghan theatre of war he is very much Obama's son of a bitch. Yet again, the US is more than happy to overlook the discretions, however serious, of an ally that is proving convenient to the current policy mission of the state department.

The intolerance of intolerance

Great Britain and indeed much of Western Europe has found itself in a paradoxical paradigm that manifests itself in an intolerance of intolerance. As Christopher Caldwell presciently argued in the April edition of the magazine Prospect, 'The values that were supposed to liberate Europeans had left them paralysed'. Indeed, the politicians and special interest groups of Europe, in their pursuit of secularism are walking all over the graves of John Locke and Hegel.

Following centuries of European bloodshed from the Napoleonic wars through to the second world war and the colonial counter insurgency campaigns of the post-war period, Europe has sought a departure from the ideological germs of its past. The concepts behind this departure were designed to be antithetical to the nationalism, militarism, chauvanism, racism and racialism that tore Europe apart in the late nineteen thirties and throughout the Second World War. As such, European political institutions sought to construct post-modern ideals of indivdualism, relatavism, democracy and human rights. Arguably, such concepts were there to act as a buffer against any emergent extremist ideologies that could once again throw the continent back into its bad old ways.

However, such ideologies did arise but their potency were tempered by the healthy macro-economic framework of the post-war years and a desire amongst the majority of Europeans and their political classes to move on and forget. So where then would this antidote for the elimination of extremism find its medicinal role in Europe? Following the demise of the European empires prior to and after the second world war, the western European states, notably Great Britain, France and Denmark experienced a reverse migration. Many nationalities of the former colonial states sought economic relief and sanctuary from the turmoils decolonisation by emigrating to Great Britain, France and Denmark. It was in these waves of migrations from the former imperial domains that the antidote to racism and fascism finally found its purpose, the intolerance of discriminatory attitudes towards the new immigrant citizens of Europe.

In 1949 the far left Movement against Racism and Friendship (MRAP) among the peoples was founded in France as a reaction against the anti-semetism of the Vichy regime in France and Nazi Germany yet over the decades its remit has slowly changed. With Nazi war criminals now in their frail years and scattered to the four corners of the earth, the fight against European anti-semitism was beginning to loose its allure to the left. By 2002, it was clear that the anti-racism movement in France had found its new cause; racism. Oriana Fallaci, a prominent and respected Italian journalist wrote The Rage and The Pride as a polemical examination of her perception of a conflict between Islam and western liberal democracy. Oriana Fallaci found herself on the wrong end of an MRAP lawsuit filed on the basis that her book constituted incitement to racial hatred. In the same year, a Swiss judge issued an arrest warrant for her trial in Switzerland for her alleged violation of article 261 of the Swiss Criminal code. Both cases demonstrate that a post-enlightenment critique of religion, specifically Islam in these instances, is regressing in the face of the intolerance of any alleged intolerance.

In Great Britain, Islam is on the rise whilst Christianity is experiencing the inverse due to the rise of secularism and the degree to which it is promoted at the behest of Christianity. During the Israeli incursion into the Gaza strip in early 2009, young Arab men were allowed to chant 'death to Israel' outside the Israeli embassy in London. In February 2009, on the streets of Luton, muslims belonging to a banned terrorist group were allowed to shout abuse at soldiers of the Royal Anglian Regiment returning from a tour of duty in Iraq. Seemingly, the religion of the 'minority' must be upheld free from persecution, even if that may be at the behest of the freedom of speech, morality and the sensitivities of the majority. Indeed, this is quite apparent when examining the inept handling by Merseyside Police of a conversation between a muslim woman and the two owners of the hotel in which she was staying. One of the hoteliers, during a conversation about their respective faiths suggested to the muslim woman that Mohammed was a warlord. However, the muslim woman has appeared to have taken umbridge against such an opinion and has thus lodged a complaint with Merseyside police force. The Christian Institute who are providing support to the Christian hoteliers commented that, "If we are really saying that someone can't express their opinions without having their collar felt by the police I think we are in a very worrying situation for freedom of speech".

One factor that is certainly not helping in the struggle of Chrisitanity to hold in Great Britain is the rise of secularism. Secularism is not an ideology that is advanced by a specific legal system in Great Britain, rather its advance is pursued by anyone and anybody and is imbued with a serious dislike of anything that may run against the grain of intolerance towards 'equality'. There are now a multitude of laws in the UK, both codified and uncodified, that cover gender and racial equality and any attempt to wander to closely to these laws often results in very stern treatment. In the case of the two Christian hoteliers referred to above, Section 5 of the Public Order Act (causing, harrassment, alarm or distress) has been invoked by a police authority in dealing with an innocuous private conversation between two individuals. Several years ago in the UK, two evangelical christians were interviewed by police for nearly an hour and a half after the police were informed that the literature being distributed by the two christians demonstrated a potentially homophobic attitude. The Bible, much like the Koran, can be construed as homophobic when homosexuality is discussed. In Sweden, a Lutheran preacher was jailed for a month after declaring that homosexuality was not morally equivalent to heterosexuality. Subsequently, the rise and protection of the secular notions of morality are pursued with little regard for the freedom of speech and at the behest of the ancien religion of Europe.

In its bid to define a purpose for its post-war ideals of human rights, individualism and equality, Europe is slowly and willingly corroding freedom of speech and gagging itself for fear of upsetting those minority groups it so desperately tries to protect with its misplaced post-war revolution. What can be seen in these cases is the gradual establishment of a zeitgeist through the politico-judicial systems of the European liberal democracies that aims to regulate the boundaries of criticism that can be levelled against the so called 'minority religions' of Europe's new societies. John Locke who constructed the intellectual foundations upon which the Western world supposedly sits upon said this of the law, " The end of law is not to abolish or restrain, but to preserve and enlarge freedom". It would appear then that the post war revolution of rallying against militarism, chauvanism and fascism has zealously disobeyed those sage old words of John Locke and long may we all regret it.

'Voters are just jealous'

In an interview with the World at One on 21st May Anthony Steen the MP for Totnes was unexpectedly candid about his conscience that failed to inhibit him from claiming £87,279 over the course of four years for his property in Devon. During the interview the MP described his behaviour as impeccable and believed that the interest in his expenses claim was jealousy. He even went so as as to say that the situation reminded him of an episode of Coronation Street, furthermore he asked what right did the public have to interfere in his private life. His answer to this was "none".

His home in Devon could hardly be described as modest or representative of the living arrangements of his constituents. It has a value of £1.5m and encompasses five hundred trees within the grounds, a separate cottage, gravelled driveway and a swimming pool. It is not the house of a man who is of modest means and is described by the MP as a 'very, very large house'. His claims for the property included tree surgery, maintenance of the cottage, an overhaul of the sewage system and an annual foresters inspection of the five hundred trees on his land.

On a de jure basis it can be construed that Anthony Steen did behave impeccably, after all his claims were processed by the fees office under the second homes allowance with only a couple of officials raising their eyebrows at some of his claims. For the financial year of 2004/05 one official did write to the MP to inform him that his claims for land management were considered excessive within the spirit of 'wholly, necessarily and exclusively on parliamentary duties'. However, his claims continued to be processed for another four years. If the argument is to be based purely on his uninhibited claims £87,000 for the upkeep of his 'very, very large house' and grounds then yes he did behave impeccably as he kept within the rules of the second homes allowance.

It is on his de facto behaviour where he is viewed in a less than favourable light. How can an overhaul to the sewage system and the continued maintenance of the grounds to what is his family home be aligned with the proviso of claiming for costs that are incurred 'wholly, necessarily and exclusively on parliamentary duties'? The truth of the matter is that tree surveys and a £1,318 wrought iron fireplace are in no way related to, or can possibly assist, in the discharging of an individuals duties as a Member of Parliament. Morally, Anthony Steen has acted in bad faith by charging the taxpayer just under the full annual value permissible under the second homes allowance for the upkeep of what in reality his family home.

Describing the anger against him as jealousy completely misunderstands the point of the matter. He is a man of wealth who has immorally used taxpayers money for the upkeep of his family home. Mr Steen may have a right to privacy, but in using public funds so extravagently on his large house in the country he nullified any right to privacy. The taxpayer has every right to know how their money is spent, particularly when such money is used for personal and not public interest.

Elliot Morley

In the words of the now suspended MP Elliot Morley, sloppy accounting was to blame for his expenses claim on the mortgage interest on his 'second home' in Scunthorpe. The mortgage expired in March 2006 and over a twenty one month period following the expiration of the mortgage he claimed for a total of £16,000.

When asked to provide evidence for the mortgage, on what was his 'second property', Mr Morley produced a bank statement and highlighted a standing order to the Cheltenham and Gloucester building society for an endowment fund for the value of £800. Using irrelevant evidence to justify his claim rather than any authentic documentation, which would demonstrate his fraudelent activity, suggests that he was trying to cover his actions.

In March 2008, Mr Morley was contacted by the fees office and informed that the existing documentation for his mortgage claim, namely his irrelevant bank statement was insufficient. Upon being asked to provide further evidence the MP said that this would be a bit difficult as his circumstances had changed. It is difficult to comprehend how a change in circumstances could affect his ability to forward on his mortgage agreement with the bank or building society to the fees office.

Failing to recognise that his account was being credited with £16,000 over a two year period, providing irrelevant evidence to the fees office and arguing that any further information would be difficult to obtain is not sloppy accounting or irredeemably stupid. It is suggestive of a general unwillingness on the behalf of Mr Morley to hand over any documentation that would nullify his false expenses claim. His actions can easily be construed as fraudelent, subsequently criminal proceedings should be brought against him under the Fraud Act 2006.

The Ghurka Khukri takes aim at Gordon Brown

The Labour Government really isn't having a good time of it, the Mcbride debacle, Brown's hasty balls up of the expenses reform package and now the Ghurka's.

Yesterday the Government was defeated by a Liberal Democrat motion aimed at defeating the recent Government guidelines on which type of Ghurka had the right to settle in Britain. Under the regulations recently proposed, those Ghurka's who have retired from the British Army after 1997 are entitled to live in Britain. Those Ghurka's who retired from the British Army before 1997 are not entitled to live in Britain, thereby exclduing thousands of men who have been willing to sacrifice their lives and limbs for this country.


A High Court ruling last year decided that the regulations were unlawful and yesterday's Commons motion against the Government proves the disparity between Government thinking and the rest of the political spectrum.



Prior to yesterday's motion in the House of Commons, Phil Woolas thought that by allowing all those Ghurka's who have served Crown and Country a right of settlement in these Isles then a precedent would be established for allowing anyone who has served this country to settle here. Rather alarmist figures were qouted by the Minister of 100,000 foreign domiciled former servicemen of our Armed Forces would come over and settle here. If these figures are correct, is it really an issue?



The Government has tended to frame the debate within the usual confines of limiting immigration and reducing the burden upon tax payers. This is not an issue of finances, but one of morality. If an individual is prepared to serve this country and risk life and limb then it is only equitable that they are allowed to settle here, whether they have served the country for one year or twenty five years. Deciding how to reward bravery and commitment through the lens of dispassionate public accounting is just plain wrong.



The defeat of a Government by a Liberal Democrat motion is unheard of, particularly when a number of the Governments own MP's (twenty seven in total) sided with the opposition. Most pundits are already commenting that the authority of Gordon Brown within the Labour Party and Parliament is in terminal decline. Looking at the evidence it would be hard argue otherwise.



Sir Christopher Kelly, the Chairman of the Committee on Standards in Public Life snubbed Gordon Brown when he was asked by the Prime Minister to quickly draw up a new system of declaring parliamentary expenses, preferring instead to wait until after the summer recess before releasing plans.

The need to speed the expenses debacle through as quickly as possible and the subsequent rebuffal by Sir Christopher are emblamatic of the Prime Ministers hasty blustering attitude to counter the terminal atrophy that has now set into his political muscle. Without McBride to deliver the kicking that Brown would have ordered against Sir Christopher, there is very little that Gordon can do now. As Peter Riddle in the Times has written, there is a stench of death reminiscent of Major's last days in Government now hanging over the Brown administration.

Should the Government face defeat in its bid to push through its expenses reform bill, now looking increasingly likely thanks to the Conservatives, then it really will be the end of PM Brown.

Obama lacks pragmatism.

Following a Freedom of Information Act lawsuit filed five years ago by the American Civil Liberties Union, Barrack Obama has decided to release a substantial number of photographs detailing 'widespread' abuse of prisoners both in Iraq and Afghanistan.

The motives behind this could be said to be a deliberate cathartic cleanse of the conscience of the American military after years of stepping the boundaries of the Geneva convention and to hopefully start afresh. More likely, it is to publicly document the violations of morality, ethics and international law by elements of the US military to achieve widespreadnational and international condemnation of the crimes committed against Iraqi and Afghani prisoners during the tenure of the Bush administration. It is intended to serve as a large stick to inflict damage upon the preceding administration and the Republican image at large.

Unfortunately, it is playing pugilistic party politics at a very heavy price. Following the Abu Ghraib scandal a few years ago, the culprits wre routed out of the US military, court cases were convened and the American public were quite happy to forget an episode in their history that had left a dirty stain upon their image and standing in the global community. The release of photographs and documentary evidence during 2004 of the abuses that occured in Abu Ghraib fuelled the flames of an already brutal insurgency added to the growing toll of Iraqi civilians and allied soldiers.

As a relative sense of peace and security has now descended on Iraq, thanks largely to the surge of the US military in 2007, it is not a prudent or equitable decision to chip away at the very fragile foundations upon which a sense of security now exists.

In Afghanistan, the US, Canada and the United Kingdom have now become emroiled in a bitter insurgency in the Pashtun heartlands of Southern Afghanistan. Across the border in the Federally Administrated Tribal Areas, the Pakistani Taliban, Lashka-e-Toiba and Jaish-e-Mohammed are waging a bitter conflict against the Pakistani army with the overall aim of deposing the supposedly 'apostate' Government of Pakistan. Releasing photographs of abuse of Afghani prisoners in US detention will merely aggravate the violence of the Taliban insurgency US and NATO soldiers in Southern Afghanistan.

What Obama has demonstrated, is a surpising lack of gravitas and a certain naivety as to the impact this decision will create in both Iraq and Afghanistan. Far from being a carthatic renounciation of the excesses of the Bush years, the decision to release these phtographs will only embolden the anti-western venom of Sunni Jihadi Salafist Islam.