Though Cowards Flinch

Mehdi Hasan, I once said in a blog post, can say whatever he wants about how difficult it would be to operate a military intervention in Syria, but we know deep down his principles are unmovable – he is against western intervention whatever the circumstances, and that can never change. A deeply disturbing thesis.

In a piece for the Guardian last year he said:

There is no call for [foreign military intervention] by opposition leaders, a NFZ would be of little value as Assad is operating with use of small clans on the ground, and a carpet bombing campaign would not help the opposition.

The trouble is, a pro-intervention Michael Weiss, for the Henry Jackson Society, says exactly the same thing.

It would be extremely difficult given the lack of a safe zone, particularly now given the retaliation of Assad’s regime over Zabadani. It has to be said that while opinion is changing, perceptions of foreign intervention by Syrian rebels is split – this is a problem.

All this is fine, and Hasan can write about this until he is blue in the face, but a fact remains the same for him – in his own words - “The sad truth is, it is not our job to topple Assad.”

So no matter how long he spends on looking at the operational difficulties a coalition of willing nations would have, it’s all for nothing, since his first principles override reason.

Before, on my part, this was an accusation. But now he admits as such. He is romantically against western intervention because it doesn’t sit well with him.

In a new article, for the New Statesman, he writes:

Whether we like it or not, it is incumbent upon those of us who are instinctively opposed to western military interventions in the Middle East to answer the question: what would you do to stop Assad?

Let me tell you, Mehdi, when on the coalface, instinct is often all you have, but when you live the cosseted life of a second-rate commentator, shaping opinion for the rest of us, perhaps instinct is the very last thing you should appeal to.

The concerns he spells out are no different from those of us who are, albeit cautiously, pro-intervention. But one thing divides us from him: namely, that we listen to the people in Syria and the best information that leaves that country and enters ours. Further still, reason.

He has sacrificed these for simple instinct. On the Middle East, I honestly fail to see why he is listened to at all by anyone other than those on the fringes.

I went to go and see Maurice Glasman give a talk last night on the inevitability of community politics, and what the state – and especially one facilitated by the Labour party – can do to help it.

I’ve written about it here.

It was slightly more detailed than the argument of how a central body can legislate for and fund something that is, essentially, bottom-up – you remember, the sum total of the boring “mutual moment” argument – but that wasn’t really what interested the journalists present.

An ITN reporter asked Lord Glasman did he feel Ed Miliband was leading yet. She was referring to *that* New Statesman article where he said, of the Labour leader:

he has not broken through. He has flickered rather than shone, nudged not led. It is time for him to bring the gifts that only he can bring. He should leave behind stale orthodoxies and trust his instinct that change is essential. He must show the kind of courage needed to steer the ship of state through uncharted waters. Now is the time for leadership and action. So far Ed has honoured his responsibilities but has not exerted his power. It is time that he did so.

So, 6 weeks into 2012, does Glasman think Ed is leading yet?

Short answer is yes. Glasman said he  is “really pleased with how it’s going” and that actually he was “a bit surprised by how much leadership Ed has shown”.

In the Statesman article, Glasman also pointed out that Labour, under Ed, ”show no signs of winning” the economic argument.

Does Glasman think that now? No, he says that Ed’s predator/producer intervention will really take off this year, and on the economic argument Ed is leading the way.

No matter that in November Jim Pickard for the FT pointed out, in a blog post entitled “Chuka Umunna tones down the producer-predator rhetoric“, that:

I’m now told that senior Labour figures are not using the words “producer” or “predator” anymore; instead the done thing is to criticise companies when they behave in “predatory” ways and praise them when they act constructively.

Bottom line: Maurice Glasman backs Ed again. Well, to be honest, he always did. In fact *that* New Statesman article ends with Glasman saying “I’m backing Ed Miliband.”

No changes, then.

On request, this post is embargoed until further notice

This really couldn’t be kept without sharing

Hello,

Having obtained your contact from the Internet; I decided to contact you and solicit for your mutual assistance. I am Barr. Dr. Dahmane Ben Abderrahmane, Attorney to the late Libyan Leader, I am writing to solicit for your partnership. On January 6th 2008, Mr. Saif Al Islam Gaddafi, Son of the late Libyan Leader, Muammar Al Gaddafi, made a numbered time (Fixed) Deposit, valued at Thirty-Eight Million Five Hundred Thousand Dollars USD ($38,500,000.00) was deposited in a bank account in Phnom penh Cambodia.

Due to the recent events and the death of his father in Libya, he instructed me that I should look for a Foreign Partner, who could handle this fund on his behalf. When the crises began I left Libya to United State, where I currently reside. I am contacting you due to the fact that Countries Government have seized various amounts running into Billions of Dollars in the past few months belonging to the family of the late Muammar Al Gaddafi, funds lodged in many foreign bank accounts.America, Canada, Austria and other countries Governments, have seized funds in bank accounts in their countries. Although, in Phnom Penh Cambodia their fund that was lodged in Mr. Saif Al Islam Gaddafi bank account has not been located. This is why we want the ownership of the said fund, to change into a different name and transferred out of the account to a foreign account.

Upon agreement of this proposal, I will like you to send your full Names, Address, Date of Birth, Occupation, Telephone number and Fax Number if any. This would be used to change the ownership and open an account bearing your name in the bank, before the funds could be transferred out, to your bank account in your country. All documents relating to this transaction have been obtained, so you don’t have to worry about any thing at all.

The money will be shared in this ratio:70% of the funds will be invested in your country on behalf of Mr. Saif Al Islam Gaddafi, and the remaining 30% will be for you. Also he would like you, to help him look for investment opportunities, to invest his seventy percent of the fund, into a business in your country. Please be informed that your utmost confidentiality is required. If this interests you, please reply me immediately and include your private phone number for voice communication.

I await your urgent reply.

Best regards,

Barr. Dr. Dahmane Ben Abderrahmane.

Attorney to Gaddafis Family.

The money would be nice, but I think I’ll probably give this a miss.

Recently I wrote about payday lenders (in fact I write about them every day, but you don’t know this yet), and in the comments section I was told off. One fellow, short and neat the name, said:

Why no reference to Credit Unions?

Well, instead of saying all in good time, I have written this tiny piece, a mere comment on credit unions which should satisfy.

I’ve very recently been speaking to politicians and staffers at credit unions and all are agreed – indeed this is one thing the world can agree on: there is not enough money going into credit unions.

Though, in March 2011, the Coalition Government earmarked £73 million for a credit union modernisation and expansion fund. This is encouraging. But I will reserve my comment, here, on what that money should go on.

First of all I was told by one MP that in Germany (the spiritual home of the credit union) and Scandinavian countries you can see one on every street corner. Research tells me that Ireland has 50 more credit unions nationally than Britain as a whole, and yet has 2 million more members.

What’s the deal? During a conversation with one credit union staff member in the North of England I was told that the credit union he works for is operating on 2 years allocated funding, with other staff mainly volunteers they spend their time trying to secure more funding and inviting other members along – in the knowledge that only a minority section of those members will be active members.

The beef was down the road, a bigger credit union has 10 years funding to play with, meaning that they can pool a greater deal of their time getting members, rather than focusing on short term funding problems.

“Why don’t they join in together,” asked one MP when I re-told them the story. With this case I don’t think they were particularly close, but geographically within jealousy range (it’s a range!). But it is a good point generally. Credit union expansion is good, but modernisation should encourage more to link up. Borough-wide credit unions? Why not. Regional credit unions? Now there’s something.

Out of the two exemplified credit unions above, which do you think had the resources to utilise more credit to more people, removing them out of the mouths of loan sharks and payday lenders on the high street?

Modernisation of credit unions is one thing, but we don’t have to reinvent the wheel. This is every day stuff in Europe. Let’s Europeanise the credit unions. Now, what would the Daily Mail think of that?

It also chimes with another vogue economic nugget. Fiscal conservatism. Hopi Sen said recently: “fiscal conservatism does not entail short-term fiscal stupidity”. Well, 2 years funding for credit unions is fiscal stupidity, given the wider cost-benefit. We should be looking long term here. I’m on to something, aren’t I.

As Shamik Das reported today, Emad Mahou, an activist with the Syrian Revolution Co-ordinators Union, has called for the west to step up pressure on Assad by coordinating a “no-fly zone” after it had come to light that 18 people were killed by the security forces in Zabadani.

It was looking for some time, albeit a brief time, that Zabadani would be to Syria what Benghazi was to Libya – a “safe-zone” in which strategy could be undertaken by rebel forces.

Encouragingly, the Declaration of the Free Local Council of Zabadani concluded (my italics):

Democracy is a new experience and a new born baby that needs attention and everyone knows that they are lacking experience and culture of democracy, and that it is necessary to move to the system of parties. But first an atmosphere of freedom is necessary for different party point of views to form and crystallize…..It is a start, and a successful start if God wills. We want it to be the beginning of the liberation of all lands and people of the homeland who are dear heroes deserving all good, respect and support……and God will bring success……..”

Local leaders of Zabadani have said that it was taken over after a spike in defections from Assad’s army to the rebels. The former were told to go heavy on the area looking for terrorists, but instead a “rare truce” had taken place seeing many turn their arms.

Government presence is reduced to a few buildings on the edge of town, but the question is of course will they let that last? As the escalation today reveals probably not. Given the signficance of Benghzai in Libya, Assad’s troops will know what losing control of such space might mean for rebel confidence.

At the start of January I noted that military intervention from outside would benefit greatly from two things from Syrian rebels – unity on their position of foreign help and a “safe-zone”. On the latter the government is quickly clawing back at the closest Syria has thus far. On the former the tables are turning. There is not full unity yet, and some groupings within the rebels still determined not to have foreign intervention, but pleas from the Syrian Revolution Co-ordinators Union signal progress.

As for the UN resolution, Russia and China said they would veto the draft unless it explicitly rules out military intervention. According to the UN 5,400 have died in Assad’s government’s 10-month crackdown on protesters. But the facts won’t deter Russia – they’ve other priorities.

While Hilary Clinton was finishing giving fresh calls for Assad to stand down and stop the bloodshed, Russia were signining a deal to sell 36 (Yak-130 aircraft) combat jets to Syria.

The deal, as ever, is done with a high amount of risk. Like in Libya, Russia could find itself down the road trying to deal with a Syria, lacking in Russian allies. If Assad was to go, Russia would have to try and ensure Syria does good on the deal – even if the sole purpose of the transaction was essentially to keep Assad in power. At best it could find itself out of pocket.

Moscow-based military analyst, Ruslan Pukhov, said, “This contract carries a very high degree of risk … Assad’s regime may fall and that would lead to financial losses for Russia and also hurt its image.”

But isn’t this why Russia is selling weapons anyway? So as to ensure existing contracts are made good? Russia already has weapons contracts with Syria worthy $5bn – to see those contracts fall into the hands of the rebels would make very bad business.

“Syria is Russia’s seventh-largest customer in a global market that yielded almost $8 billion for Rosoboronexport [Russia's official arms export cooperation] in 2009. Sales to Syria over the past decade have amounted to about 10 percent of Russia’s total weapons exports.”

This is the long and short of it. If a resolution fails to go through the UNSC then this will mean further bloodshed in Syria. And one of the reasons a possible resolution will fail is because of Russia – whose concern here is that they don’t lose an ally who does their weapons a roaring trade. It is healthy business for Russia that Assad carries on killing en masse – and they will probably go on about it if a western sanction goes ahead, via illegal routes.

I’ve written a review today of Peter Hain’s autobiography Outside In on the Left Foot Forward website (published yesterday), saying what a good read it was, and what an interesting person Hain is. I’ve also said that he is something of a conviction politician, which is good to see, and that clearly he was in it for changing the world, not careerism – which in spite of how you see his politics, or whether you agree with them, is noble at least.

On the 20th of January he was clearly delighted that Ken Livingstone was leading Boris in the opinion polls for the mayoral election. He said on twitter:

Great London/Ken poll wipes smile off smug Tory faces and caps off great week for Labour

In his book he did mention that in not supporting Ken for Mayor, Tony Blair’s New Labour control freakery was one example of the mistakes which led to Labour losing supporters (p.212).

But elsewhere (pp.159-60) he had this to say about Ken, which I love:

…I wanted to be effective, to be able to make a real difference. And that meant learning what not to do from Ken Livingstone … he seemed to go out of his way to make enemies, for instance on one occasion gratuitously insulting Labour MPs from northern England by falsely implying that they spent their evenings either drunk or in brothels.

Further in that chapter (p.185) he told the story of when Tony Blair asked him to be a whip in 1995,despite of the fact  there was much “suspicion” about him.

Blair, according to Hain, explained:

how he would have wanted to bring Ken Livingstone in too, but that Ken’s behaviour had never permitted that. ‘I may not have liked everything you have said or written, Peter, but you have never been aggressive or personalised your criticisms like Ken has.’

Ken as a whip – imagine that. Rumour has it that Ken recently grassed on the Labour whip when back in the nineties they were encouraging MPs to claim a second-home allowance as supplementary to their wages.

If Ken’s behaviour had been better, he could have stopped that, theoretically.

Still, great intervention by Hain. It’s a great read.

Recently it was revealed by McKinsey, the consultancy, that the UK debt to GDP ratio stood at 507% in the middle of 2011. Robert Peston reminds us that this is up from 487% of GDP in the second quarter of 2008, and, incredibly, from around 300% in 2003 – before the credit boom.

Only Japan is more indebted with its debt to GDP ratio at 512%.

Further still, it is the financial sector, mostly in the city, which accounts for 219% of the debt. Household debt experienced a modest decrease, though is still very high.

To rub our noses in it, the Royal Bank of Scotland - undeterred by the reputation left by Fred “the shred” Goodwin – has a pot of £500m to spread liberally around its investment bankers in bonus pay.

This gave grounds for the Wongaforum – a forum, as you might guess, that talks about all subjects wonga, and beyond – to post on how terrible it is that RBS bankers are set to receive such fortunes, while banks themselves receive a downgrade from Moody’s and the rest of us suffer.

This is because with the banks not doing their jobs properly, not heeding to calls to further roll out basic bank accounts and overdrafts (an intervention which didn’t cause the banking crisis, nor would hurt the banks one iota), forcing people into the hands of pawnbrokers and high street shops who promise to cash cheques for high fees, places like wonga are able to pretend to have the moral high ground.

As Stella Creasy recently put it, “Payday loan companies are trying to promote a veneer of respectability”.

Better still, payday loan companies – which Wonga are despite their own denial – are so acutely aware of how horrid an image loan sharks have, that they will do anything to deflect the notion that they are similar.

And to a large extent this is true, though Wonga are also trying to deflect the notion that they are anything like other payday lenders on the high street.

This is because what this trade boils down to is one where sub-prime consumers are given money at high interest to pay for things we in the west would consider basic necessities. Regardless of whether Wonga are providing a service nobody else delivers (banks especially), profiting from the poor looks bad – and for good reason.

They’ll say they stop people from calling on real loan sharks who charge interest rates of percentages in the tens of thousands, though profit from poverty is still frowned upon.

Wonga will even say they don’t target the sub-prime consumers, but there is not enough money to be made in appealing to the Middle classes who have a distrust of banks, and students alone. Though of course any such proof that Wonga have no desire to target this market is hidden behind what they call commercially sensitive data.

In arguing their case, Wonga end up sounding just like the labour union workers in 1930s America did when arguing that low income earners should not be excluded from the credit market. Why, if everyone else could buy on the promise that money will be paid later on, could they not join in? Why were the banks excluding them?

Effectively, Wonga are trying to make a progressive case for their cause – and this is born out of a realisation that they must shift the image both of the loan shark and the payday lender today.

Let’s not forget, though, that banks are allowing Wonga to have this moral high ground, which means that any campaign effort against the profiteering of the payday loan industry, should target banks too, and call for the retail arm of banks to do its job properly.

Nikki Whiteman, writing for the Which? blog, noted that her “own financial knowledge, even now, leaves a lot to be desired”.

“By the time I left college”, she continues, “I understood just enough to get a good student bank account … But my understanding of debt in general was woefully poor.”

Whiteman wrote these words in support of the e-petition posted by “money expert” Martin Lewis for financial education to be compulsory in schools.

He said: “It’s a national disgrace that in the 20 years since student loans launched we’ve educated our youth into debt, but never about debt.”

Back in November the petition had reached the requisite 100,000 signatories needed in order for parliament to debate it – it is demonstrably a real concern for schools and parents, and reflects many of our own financial uncertainties today.

Like the plan or not, this is obviously of major interest to the education secretary Michael Gove and Barclays, who will be offering large sums of money to academies and free schools (including free accounts) while expanding money management courses in schools.

The chief executive of Barclays retail and business banking, Antony Jenkins, said: “Barclays is supporting free schools and academies because we want to boost financial skills for young people.”

The commitment toward more financial education is shared by the education secretary, banks offering great sums towards it, finance experts, and enough people in this country to get 100,000 signatures on an e-petition.

Which is why I found it strange, talking to a Councillor yesterday who represents a shire county (will not name what one). I asked her whether anyone ever complained to her about debt or financial problems, and whether she felt children needed to be more financially literate. She responded:

in response to your questions, no, none of my constituents have contacted me about any financial issues; I would support financial education for children and young people, but I suspect you would find that the better schools already do this – certainly my children’s school does so

Oh, that’s fine then. Don’t know what those other people are worried about.

Shakespeare himself could not have invented better hubris.

Bye then.

P.s. Tories only like Blair because he stayed in power for so long. In fact he’s not the only person they love for that reason. If I didn’t have principles, I’d probably like someone on that basis alone, too. But, alas, I want to challenge the political class, their lobbyists and the toxic press – not give in to it. You go ahead though, cool handed one, it’ll be good for you. And of course you can come back anytime. Perhaps when your love of politics is based on more than just winning the election, but winning the debate. I mean sure, Blair won all those elections, but do we live in a better country? Got to ask yourself, did I join the Labour party because I’m massively into short term bursts of power for my mates, or do I want to change the world. For all your posturing on enterprise this, and I want this for children that, what it really boils down to is you want to win elections no questions asked. Well, that’s not for me. I want to win elections because I’m doing this country good, and I’m making sure the best is pursued for it, and the most vulnerable don’t suffer in spite of it. Yup, you join the Tories. It’s just a game to you, isn’t it, er, Luke. That bloke what’s off twitter zzzzzz.

Statement to follow.