New pairing for Strictly Come Dancing

Wouldn’t it be wonderful to have Margaret Thatcher and David ‘Dave’ Cameron as competitors on this show?

Those familiar with the format will immediately state that it requires a professional dancer, and a celebrity partner; this pairing would therefore be unsuitable.

I strongly disagree.

Lady Thatcher is, by any measure, a celebrity. There is obviously the potentially contentions issue that if “the lady’s not for turning”; a larger venue may be required to appreciate her particular speciality.

Dave, on the other hand, is a seasoned veteran of fancy footwork. One only has to observe his repeatedly, and expertly, executed ‘QUATTRO’*.  This step, which has become his hallmark, is always very clumsily executed; as this is intentional, judges will not reduce their marks.

There is a story doing the rounds that Dave always has the door opened for him. This is not in deference to his exalted position as Prime Minister but, to avoid confusion. In a rehearsal for greeting a fellow member of the ‘club’, Dave was observed entering a revolving door and not exiting for some considerable time, having twirled round and round. Upon exit, he is quoted as saying “that was one hell of a dance. Which way did I decide ‘in’ or ‘out’… and we’d better reverse that decision straightaway”.

…this brings us, not very neatly, to the subject of charitable giving. In the usual QUATTRO move, Dave has reduced charitable donations to a maximum of £50,000, or 25% of income, or has he? Who said “I used to be indecisive, now, I’m not so sure”.

The solution to the ‘charitable deduction for tax avoidance purposes’ gaffe is simple. Restrict deductible donations to entities registered as charities by the charities commission. There are 162,136 of them so, anyone genuinely interested in making a substantial donation should find something to their taste. Smaller donations could still be channelled through the efficient ‘just giving’ scheme. Overseas help would still be fundable through a UK registered charity, which provides aid abroad. Contributions to foreign registered ‘charities’ would not be tax deductible.

*For those of you who have had been sheltered from the finer points of ballroom dancing, a QUATTRO is a step so called, because it is a QUick About Turn with Twirl and Reverse Observation.

Naïve or stupid?

There must be a dividing line between naïvety and just plain, old-fashioned, stupidity.

The puppy barking at its own reflection... just the thought of it probably makes you smile. The puppy will learn pretty quickly; he's just naïve (as in untrained).

The youngster repeating something overheard between two adults... perhaps embarrassing for those concerned but, it's a lesson that gets learned. The youngster is naïve, as in inexperienced.

The politician being found with his pants down in the wrong place... not a pretty picture but, perhaps, getting caught once might be described as naïve (as in unwise), you might even take a generous view and suggest that he might have been framed; any more than that, questions could be asked about competence.

The UK government suggesting that people should take precautionary measures in case of a tanker drivers' strike... was this naïve?.

This incitement to stockpile has been interpreted, as it obviously would be, as 'keep your fuel tanks full, and have a bit extra put aside'.

The last time there was a threatened tanker drivers' strike, in 2000, petrol stations and shops rapidly ran out of jerry cans. It seems that the same thing is happening again. This begs the question of 'where are the jerries' (cans, that is). Are we sitting upon a huge stockpile of filled containers (potentially seeping into the environment), have they been put to some other use, have petrol can manufacturers got a particularly strong lobby at Westminster?

Perhaps someone would care to calculate the wasted cost (in additional fuel used, for a start) of queuing at filling stations, to only put a modest amount of fuel in a tank, the additional wear and tear on mechanical components (particularly starter motors), and the not inconsiderable additional pollution caused by this wanton exercise.

The result of the advice is self imposed rationing by some garages.

So, in your opinion, is the recommendation of the government naïve or just plain stupid?

The Prime Minister has convened 'Cobra', the emergency planning committee... lucky Benny Hill's Chinaman isn't a member!

Affordable property for first timers

Coincidentally, Britain and Switzerland have both announced (on Sunday 11th March) measures to make housing more affordable for first-time buyers. The routes taken to reach the decisions, and even more the measures are very different, even diametrically opposed.

The British government has announced the NewBuy Guarantee scheme (available only in England!). The political motivation behind this scheme purports to make access to the housing ladder more affordable for first-time buyers; a very noble ambition. How likely is it to succeed?

Working backwards from available information, one finds that the average initial housing purchase is funded with a deposit of £38,000. Based on a deposit of 20%, this equates to an average capital cost for a first-time property of £190,000. It also appears that the average age of a first-time buyer is, a surprisingly high, 37. So, basically it has taken about 25 years to save £38,000; not taking into account compound interest, or the vagaries of the stock market (where one could easily have lost 30% in 2008).

Firstly, the scheme is not limited to first-time buyers, so, at its most basic the scheme is already pitting existing home-owners against property owning virgins. This will prove to be the first ratchet in an upward pressure on prices.

The scheme is being funded by the government (whenever you read that, it means YOU, the taxpayer) and property developers. A fund is being set up protect lenders (the banks) against potential losses on these deals. Under the scheme, the property developer pays the lender 3.5% of the purchase price, and the government provides an additional guarantee of 5.5%. This clearly adds an additional cost to the expenses of property developers and will be the second upward pressure on prices. Put simply, if the sale price of a property is cost plus 20%, the average sale price of £190,000 has just become £198,330, as a simple fact of the additional cost to property developers.

So, taking our examples above, and assuming a 5% mortgage rate, the current first-time buyer has to find £7,600 to fund the interest element of his mortgage; under the new scheme, this will have risen to £9,420 per annum; an increase of £1,820 per year. If these newcomers to the home-owning experience had the extra £1,820, they could have saved it, been younger than 37, and buying property at a lower price.

Additionally, the NewBuy Guarantee scheme does not provide a safety net to the purchaser; if he finds himself in a negative equity situation (and has to sell), he will still be in the usual creek without a paddle (or even a canoe). This is all so similar to the starting point to the US sub-prime debacle, which was based on overly generous lending on overpriced properties; lesson not learned.

It will also be interesting to find out how HM Treasury will account for their part in the guarantee scheme. Will it be a straight cost, or a contingent liability, which will only become apparent when things go belly up.

The thinking behind this scheme is, no doubt, well-intentioned but also doomed to failure.

On Sunday 11th March, the Swiss people voted in a referendum (there were four others that day, as well as state elections) to limit the number of secondary (i.e. not main) residences to a maximum of 20% in any given 'commune' (town or village). The vote was passed by a slim majority, and against the recommendations of the Federal Council (government) and parliament.

The initiative was mainly aimed at mountain villages, which are sprawling as a result of seemingly excessive development. The idea is that the countryside is for everyone, and that continued development will blight this asset. Tourism being a major industry in Switzerland, this is a powerful motivator. Part of the argument was also that wealthy Swiss, as well as foreign investors, were driving up property prices, to the detriment of the younger generation.

It is now for the law makers to make this initiative applicable; they have their work cut out. There are quite a few resort villages where considerably more than 20% of the properties are owned as second residences, and frequently a high proportion of those are foreigners. Forcing people to sell is simply not a option.

So, what are the likely outcomes of this change in attitude. Firstly, it is likely that construction permits in these areas will be much harder to obtain. This, in itself, can only result in higher prices, unless there is a sustained movement to divest oneself of these properties. But, who would want to sell a property that can only increase in value.

Secondly, it seems likely that there could be another upward pressure on prices by foreigners viewing this as a 'last chance saloon' to invest in tourist areas.

In the medium term, if planning permissions are only given for main residences, this will have the desired effect of reducing prices, provided that local authorities make available the building land necessary for such projects.

This initiative seems to have some hope of helping first-time buyers but, not in the short-term, and it is not without risks.

How to keep your hands warm

I suffer from cold hands in the winter. There's no need to feel sorry for me, clap (like a seal), or throw peanuts; it's life and that's all there is to it. The problem manifests itself when skiing; the action of clutching one's poles means that there is no movement of the fingers, thereby worsening the situation.

I have, however, been looking for a solution for a number of years. My criterion was (and indeed still is) passing my ERC (Effective, Reliable, Comfortable) test.

There are many solutions that pass some of the individual criterion but none (until now) have fulfilled all the criteria.

There are inner gloves, which used to be in pure silk (good luck finding any nowadays), and are now in various artificial fabrics. Apart from making the glove tighter, which is very much the opposite of the desired effect, they do offer a slight improvement. What they are really doing is compensating for inadequate gloves. The obvious suggestion of purchasing larger gloves is ineffective, as you end up with longer (glove) fingers that hinder your grip on your poles.

Chemical warmers do indeed warm the hands but, they can also be far too hot, are uncontrollable and (mainly) non-renewable. They also tend to be uncomfortable as they are in the glove or, all but useless if fitted in a pouch in the top of the glove. The sensation of cold tends to start in the extremities of the fingers, not on the back of the hand.

There are also gloves containing elements that are heated by a battery that is contained in the glove. I have tried these and found them to be very unreliable and backed by customer service that is so appalling that it should be nominated for the opposite of a WOW! Award.

Things have now changed, at last. There are heated gloves that meet my ERC test!

My recommendation is to leave your gloves on a warm radiator overnight (and don't forget to take them in the morning). The reason for doing this is that if you start with cold hands (putting on boots, helping the kids, paying for your lift pass…), then you face an uphill battle. This way, when you put your gloves on, they will already be warm and your batteries still fully charged.

The gloves have three heat settings, with a light which changes colour from green, through amber, to red. Don't spare the horses, set them straight for the highest setting (red). On this setting the heat will be constant for about three hours. To compensate for the higher setting, I suggest that you buy a spare set of batteries; the extra comfort is well worth the additional cost.

If (when) you stop for lunch, turn off the battery (in order to conserve charge), and place the gloves on a radiator (to get that toasted feeling when you put them back on).

I am happy to have experienced cold conditions (-10), wet (snowing, that is), and had warm hands all day.

A big 'thank you' to Sandy, who will be happy to supply you with details of how to obtain this excellent product.

Do the Liberal Democrats seriously want to be elected ?

On Wednesday 8th February, the Daily Telegraph reported that the Lib Dems were seeking a pre-budget assurance that the tax relief on pension contributions would be limited to the basic rate of income tax. The Telegraph goes on to state that "the Treasury estimates that scrapping the 40 per cent relief would cost workers £7 billion per year".

Yesterday, Saturday 11th February, the Daily Telegraph further quoted Danny Alexander, the Liberal Democrat Chief Secretary to the Treasury as stating "if you look at the amount of money that we spend on pensions tax relief, which is very significant, the majority of that money goes to paying relief at the higher rate". This could turn out to be one of the most inept statements of this parliament, and, the policy which it espouses, the one that ensures there are less Liberal Democrat MPs next time around.

So why is not only the policy, but also the premise for change so unavoidably flawed?

Apart from a serious loss of contact with the electorate, referring to the Treasury 'spending' on a relief is utter nonsense. A potential reduction in income, maybe; a matter to be treated as expenditure; absolutely not.

The £7 billion refers to the difference, ceteris paribus (which you will recall means all other things being equal or constant) between the amount of tax that would have been paid if the tax relief on pension contributions were limited to 20%, rather than at the effective rate of tax. The fact is that all other things are most definitely not equal. People frequently increase their pension contributions, precisely so that their income is taxed at the lower (20% rate). Removing the higher rate relief would ineluctably lead to lower pension contributions.

At first sight, this would seem to be even more of a bonanza than the Lib Dems had been waiting for; not only would the rate of relief on contributions be reduced but the size of the pool would also diminish, leading to yet more tax intake. The £7 billion additional revenue would be even higher; what a master stroke... except that life is not quite that simple.

The whole reason behind the huge pensions industry is that it was realised, some time ago, that it was financially impossible for the government (in its role of redistributor of tax revenues) to dole (sorry, couldn't resist) out pensions to everyone as an exercise in bountifulness. The solution was to encourage each and every one to save for their pension, on an individual basis... unless they were in government or the civil service, of course. This very much helped the financial services industry, on which the UK relies so much (possibly excessively).

So the actual effect of a reduction in pension contributions, which is the unavoidable corollary to reducing the tax relief, would be a reduction in income for the financial services industry. This, in turn, would lead to reduced profits and job losses; hardly the desired effect.

And now for two lessons in very basic economics; the sort of common sense that seems to be so sorely lacking in the political class. The fact that they seem necessary reflects appallingly on the quality of our 'leaders':

Lesson No. 1 - Increased demand leads to higher prices.
The very fact that there is more money going into pension funds increases the price of the individual component shares. This benefits everyone in a fund, regardless of the rate of tax relief they are receiving. Reduce the demand and the value of the funds will fall.

Lesson No. 2 - Propensity to save is not equal.
If you have £10,000 left over after your expenses, you are much more likely to save some, or all, of it than if you have a residue of £100. It is self evident that one is more likely to have a larger amount left over if one has a larger amount to start with. Therefore, higher rate taxpayers are more likely to be larger contributors to pension funds. Now read lesson No. 1 again and see how this has a multiplier effect.

The UK, in common with many countries, has a progressive tax system, where higher incomes are taxed at a higher marginal rate. Most countries (actually, all that I am aware of) have various deductions to income which can be made, in order to arrive at a net (taxable) income. The Lib Dem proposal would effectively be at odds with this system, thereby differentiating the rate at which a deduction were allowed, based on a political whim.

If one believes in a market economy and fairness, which I thought were Liberal Democrat values then, the proposal, or demand, as it seems to be, would be a nail in the Lib Dem coffin.

The last Liberal Prime Minister was Lloyd George, who left office in 1922, having been at the head of a coalition government backed by more Conservatives than Liberals. The closest that the Liberals have come to having any real political power since then, is with Nick Clegg's appointment as Deputy Prime Minister, under the current coalition agreement. If the Lib Dems want to be electable, I would suggest that a return to traditional socialist (squeeze them until the pips squeak) ideals is suicide.

Excessive Executive Pay - a Solution

The matter of executive pay and bankers' bonuses seems to be in the news again. There seems to be a widely held view that some remuneration levels are excessive. Hand in hand with this is lip service from politicians but, no actual suggestion of a solution. Politicians are stuck between a rock (the electorate) and a hard place (their funders). The real truth is that there is a lack of will to take a (calculated) risk, and actually address the problem.

So, here is a readymade solution, complete with the contra-arguments.

Various figures have been suggested as a maximum level of pay. They are all irrelevant as  they neither differentiate between an Executive and an Entrepreneur, and they would need to be reviewed to reflect inflation. This would therefore protect senior executives from inflation; a very bad starting point.

The problem calls for a different approach. Let us assume that the job of Prime Minister must be very stressful, carries great responsibility, and as such can be likened that of a CEO of a large company.

My initial suggestion was that the maximum executive pay should be limited to a multiple of the Prime Minister's pay, say two or three times. These are, admittedly, arbitrary figures and are obviously open to attack. Here are, however, two figures which cannot be challenged:

Phi (φ) The Golden Number 1.62

This number has been used for millennia as an almost magical relationship. It is found in architecture, design, mathematics, nature, art, theology, and almost anywhere that you care to investigate. This is not the place to expand on the concept (you can click on the heading for a further insight). This is however, an excellent starting point for maximum executive pay, as a multiple of the salary of the Prime Minister.

Pi (π) The ratio of the circumference of a perfect circle to its diameter 3.14

This is again a mathematical constant that is introduced to schoolchildren, as soon as it comes to calculate lengths, areas, or volumes that involve a circle. This could therefore become the maximum executive pay, including bonuses.

Now, the last thing we would want to do is stifle initiative and innovation, so executive pay must only apply to companies in which there is no restriction on who can be a shareholder (in the UK a PLC). For the sake of avoidance, this would have to include and entity (limited company, partnership, or other) that is ultimately controlled by by a PLC.

This ensures that anyone risking their personal finances in starting a company can be rewarded, without limit. There is therefore no restriction whatsoever on entrepreneurship. It is entrepreneurs who create markets and jobs. Large companies are merely a progression from the embryo; they are not creators.

So, where's the downside? Good question. Let's look at the various scenarios if this revolutionary appliance of common-sense were put into place:

1.      Static - Executives who are in place remain where they are, and accept that they are still well paid, although no longer receiving enormous remuneration. This would lead to reduced costs for companies which would be translated into lower prices and/or higher profits for shareholders (many of whom are pension funds); everyone's a winner.

2.      Mass Exodus Overseas - All, or the vast majority, of 'overpaid' executives leave their jobs in what many would call a 'brain drain'. They would be replaced by more appropriately paid staff, with the same benefit to shareholders as the Static scenario. This would also lead to lower unemployment and, therefore, a reduced tax burden. If one also assumes that such behaviour would only be executed by people who understood a market economy, the consequence of their actions will not escape them. Putting a large number of people who are expecting vast remuneration abroad will only lead to an excess of supply over demand, thereby leading to reduced remuneration. Result, you uproot, only to find that the greener grass is but an illusion.

3.      Recycling - Those people who really believe that they are worth stratospheric salaries will become Entrepreneurs. They will risk their money to develop their own companies. Result: reduced unemployment.

4.      Retirement - Having made so much money, the executives, deprived of their shareholder (or taxpayer) funded trough decide to put their feet up. Result: increased demand, as all that spare time will lead to higher spending.

Now wouldn't it be wonderful if there were a government who brought in these emergency measures, and then went one step further. As all this pay would be dependant on the PM's salary, what about if he really led by example and said "we live in tough times, I am taking a 20% pay cut"; this would be multiplied across thousands of companies.

Being a firm believer in a market economy, I never thought I would find myself writing this but, something must change.

This is obviously fairly utopic stuff but, we are all allowed to dream

Should a banker forgo his bonus ?

Its not that I've suddenly gone soft on bankers but, the historical progression of this story, as ever, beggars belief.

In the dark days of the banking collapse of 2008 (seems like we've been in one crisis or another ever since), the Royal Bank of Scotland (RBS) got into serious difficulties. The bank announced eye-watering losses of £28 billion, a UK corporate record. This was put down to a case of overwhelming greed.

Rather than leave market forces to decide the price of such abject failure, the then Labour government in the UK decided to intervene. As a result, the UK Government (strictly speaking the treasury, through a vehicle called UK Financial Investments Ltd) became interested in 84% of the share capital of RBS, obviously leaving it as, by far, the largest shareholder.

In order for the bank to retain a listing on the London Stock Exchange, the voting rights attached to those shares were unilaterally diluted to 75%. There was no financial consideration for this action; very much an affront to the UK taxpayer. Very much a case of government intervention caused by panic, and reality being something for 'the rest of us'.

The then CEO, Sir Fred Goodwin, was forced to stand down, having been deemed responsible for the bank's predicament. He left with a golden parachute including a pension of £703,000 per annum. There was uproar at the amounts, and the story was on the front page for weeks. In the end a compromise agreement was reached of a pension (payable immediately to this 50 year-old) of £555,000 per annum, after having also received a, tax free, (another kick in the teeth for taxpayers) one-off lump sum of £2.7 million.

And for those of you who were wondering how plain Fred Goodwin turned into a 'Sir'; he was knighted by Labour prime minister Tony Blair in 2004 for... this is worth the wait... 'services to banking'. Laughable, tragic, inept, or maybe something altogether more nefarious.

A new chief executive was sought to replace Fred the Shred (a sobriquet earned as a result of merciless axe wielding at take-over time). The lot fell on Stephen Hester who was brought in from outside RBS; hardly a surprise as the performance of the previous incumbents, as a group, hardly warranted internal promotion.

Just, for one moment, let's assume that the government was instrumental (or at very least deeply involved) in this appointment. If it had not been at least consulted then, its cavalier attitude towards the taxpayers' money would have bordered on the criminal. So, let's take it as read then that the, then, Labour government appointed, or at very least rubber stamped the appointment of the new CEO.

I don't know about you reading this but, whenever I have been involved in hiring someone, the matter of compensation (it used to be called pay and conditions but, there's progress for you), was discussed before anyone signed any contract. We are therefore back to a government and majority shareholder not having a clue of the real world.

That's the background filled in, now fast forward to now. The Labour party (now, not surprisingly, in opposition) has 'threatened' a debate on whether or not Stephen Hester should receive his near £1 million bonus. Mr Hester has taken the path of least resistance and refused his bonus, not wishing to be branded a banking pariah.

So, I genuinely feel sorry for Mr Hester. He has, presumably, met the terms of his contract and his employers (as represented by the majority shareholder) are threatening a public execution.

The current Labour MPs (many of whom were in the previous government), should now do the decent thing and forgo all their pay and expenses.

Discounted Ski Passes

If you've been skiing or boarding to Villars before then, you are aware that queuing for a lift pass can take quite some time, especially in the peak season. There are a number of ways to avoid this waste of time, and, at the same time, to pay less  than the published price for your lift pass.

Before being able to obtain the benefit of any of these advantages, you need to have a Key Card to use as your pass. If you do not already have one then, simply buy one once you are in Villars for CHF 5.00 from the lift company, unless you already have one from a previous visit.


Option One - Easyski

The reduced prices only apply to tickets for the next day and up to four days. You cannot get a reduced priced ticket for the day of purchase.

The only type of ticket available for this option is a day pass that gives you access to the whole Alpes Vaudoises*.

You will be greeted by a screen that looks like this:

Simply choose the number of tickets for the first day, then press the 'ucBtnSelect' button (don't ask... I haven't got a clue why they don't just have 'buy' or 'select'). Repeat this process for every day; you cannot choose more than one day on the first screen (again, don't ask).

You will then have the choice of 'anonymous purchase' or 'identified purchase'. I suggest you use 'identified purchase as you still need to enter your name and date of birth for an 'anonymous purchase', and you will need to enter it all again next time you use it. You now need to enter your KeyCard number, in the format including the hyphens. Add this to basket for each different person and then repeat for each day that you want a pass. Then you will be able to pay with your credit card.

You will receive a confirmatory email which I suggest you keep on your phone, just in case there is a problem.

Option Two - Skipass

This option only gives you reduced prices, compared to a single day pass, in the sense that you can buy a pass for multiple days at a reduced price. These prices are identical to those practiced at the ticketing booths.

 

This time, the screen looks like this:

The procedure for actually ordering is similar to that for EasySki.

 

Option Three - FreePass

This option enables you to use your KeyCard whenever you want, and you are automatically debited each day. There is a saving of 30% during the week and 15% at weekends.

As with all the other options, the main advantages are reduced daily rates and no queuing. The downside is that there is a fee of CHF 50.00 (CHF 30.00 for children 9-15) for setting up the service, and you will always be billed for a full day, albeit at the reduced price. Additionally, you must provide a photograph.

If you want additional information, you can contact me through the Contact Form, and receive regular updates of snow conditions either on Twitter (@munificus), or on my dedicated skiing page.

Have a great winter!


*Alpes Vaudoises consists of Leysin, Les Mosses, La Lécherette, Les Diablerets, Glacier 3000, Villars – Gryon.

French Presidential Elections - a Prediction

French Presidential Elections - a Prediction

Before sticking my neck out and making a prediction, here is some background information that might be useful.

The French people choose a president, who must be elected by a majority of the voting population (that is, must receive more than 50% of the votes cast). This is achieved by the simple method of having, up to, two rounds of voting. In the first round, all the candidates meeting the criteria are on the ballot list. If no candidate receives an absolute majority of the votes then, the top two candidates go into the second ballot. Apart from the statistically extremely unlikely possibility of both receiving exactly the same number of votes cast, one must be elected by the majority.

The main criteria for being a candidate for the presidency are that one must be a French national aged at least eighteen years, and have been sponsored by at least 500 elected French officials. There are about 46,000 such people, approximately 35,000 of whom are mayors, the rest are elected members of various assemblies. A sponsorship is a matter of public record and nobody can sponsor more than one candidate. This sponsorship is similar to that required to join a club; it does not involve a financial element. It is also (incorrectly), frequently, described as 'godparenting', as a result of a poor translation from the French 'parrainage'.

The first round of the election will take place on 22nd April, 2012 and the second round (there has always been a second round) two weeks later, on 6th May, 2012.

The runners and riders for this contest have not yet been declared, although various intentions have been made clear. The following are near certain to meet the criteria for nomination, and have also openly stated that they wish to have their candidacy considered: the incumbent, Nicolas Sarkosy (UMP - Union pour un Mouvement Populaire, a centre right party, who polled 31% of the vote in the first round last time out), Francois Hollande (Socialist, whose party, in the form of his ex-partner polled 26%), Francois Bayrou (Democratic Movement, a centrist who personally gained 19%), and Marine Le Pen (National Front, right wing party, whose father polled over 10% in 2007, and was the run off candidate in 2002).

And here is the tip, directly from the horse's mouth, so to speak. Marine Le Pen will be a candidate in the second round of the election on 6th May. This is based, not on personal political ideology, but on simple arithmetic. In the most recent polls, one third of respondents said they would vote for the National Front (Marine Le Pen's party). This leaves two thirds of the votes to be shared between the three other candidates. It is therefore arithmetically impossible for two other protagonists to receive more votes than Marine Le Pen.

The only way this would not happen is, of course, the million to one scenario, where one candidate receives over 50% of the votes cast, which would be a first and should get you some amazing odds.

I believe Marine Le Pen has also played a very strong card in declaring that she would take France out of the Euro currency. This is unlikely to alienate her core supporters and will strike a sympathetic chord with some voters of most other parties, thereby bringing her more votes in the first round. It will further strengthen her position, as it is extremely unlikely (although I could be proved wrong), that any of the other candidates mentioned will dare to suggest a Euro exit. This will have a levelling effect on the other candidates, thereby diluting their individual share of the vote even further.

Things could have been very different if Dominique Strauss-Kahn had not been embroiled in a sexual scandal, which effectively cost him the socialist party nomination. If the rumours of a 'dirty tricks' campaign are eventually proven then, the current French administration, as well as that of the United States could live to seriously regret their, alleged, involvement.

Racism - a black and white case?

It's been quite a week for racism in the UK. Here are three examples of what have, perhaps, been the most prominent news stories.

 

Stephen Lawrence

This 18 year old teenager was brutally murdered in a racist attack while waiting for a bus. This incident happened in 1993. It has taken another 18 years for the British justice system to catch up with, at least some of, the perpetrators. There is absolutely no place for such behaviour in a civilised society. Everyone must be appalled by the actions of his attackers; their jail terms will mean that they are not a threat to society again, or at least not for a very long time. There is absolutely no room for ambiguity in this case.

 

 

Luis Suárez

The Liverpool Football Club No. 7 was found guilty by an FA (Football Association) independent regulatory commission of having called another player (Patrice Evra of Manchester United) a 'negro'. The punishment meted out was a £40,000 fine and an eight match suspension.

 

It seems that the word 'negro' was taken as a disparaging remark. It is worth mentioning that this 'conversation' was taking place between a Uruguayan and a Frenchman, and not necessarily in English.

 

George Bernard Shaw wrote that "England and America are two countries divided by a common language". He was correct when he wrote that, and is just as accurate today. The US Census of 2010 lists 'negro' as a racial option.

 

As usual, the news channels rolled out various so-called 'experts' who gave us the benefit of their vast experience in these matters. One suggested that the timing of a declaration by Luis Suárez' employers (Liverpool Football Club) to not appeal against the decision was 'unfortunate'. This pundit was obviously blissfully unaware that LFC had to accept the decision (or not) to get the clock ticking on the suspension; there was a match the same day. During this match, large numbers supporters of the opposing team were chanting 'where's your racist'; no action was taken against them.

 

My favourite quote on the matter comes from Lord Ouseley, erstwhile chairman of the Commission for Racial equality (1993 to 2000). Referring to the case and the conduct of Luis Suárez, as well as that of LFC, he stated "all we have heard are denials and denigration of Evra". Etymology cannot be Lord Ouseley's strong suit.

 

The decision by the FA has now set a precedent; one which I believe they will regret. A tariff has been set and will now need to be applied in the inevitably huge number of complaints that will be brought in the future.

 

 

Diane Abbott

This labour Member of Parliament (currently shadow minister for public health), born to Jamaican immigrants in London, tweeted "White people love playing 'divide & rule' we should not play their game #tacticasoldascolonialism". Her boss, opposition leader Ed Milliband apparently ordered her to apologise, which she duly did. Diane Abbott is not new to controversy. In 2004 the Committee on Standards and Privileges found that she had failed to declare earnings of £17,300 on the Register of Members' Interests for fees received for television appearances on the BBC. Diane Abbott was required to apologise to the house. In 1996 Diane Abbott stated that "blonde, blue-eyed Finnish girls" were unsuitable as nurses. The reason: they had "never met a black person before". She also made a speech in the United States where she stated that "the British invented racism". Last year Diane Abbott was reported as having referred to the Prime Minister and his deputy as "two posh white boys". The worst which has befallen Diane Abbott is that she has been required to apologise. Could this be referred to as a whitewash? (Sorry, I could not resist that one).

 

As a result of the controversial Tweet, experts were again brought in to comment. One who was very much defending Diane Abbott from any racist slur that was suggested (after all, what are friends for) stated that she had always been re-elected with increased majorities, at every general election. Apart from the fact that the assertion is incorrect, it could also be shown to prove exactly the opposite point to that sought.

The UK seems to be going through turmoil over racism at the moment. These are a number of high profile news stories that are making the country re-evaluate its attitude towards racial tolerance. It seems to be a case of a multicultural, multiethnic society no longer having a clue of what it really stands for.

 

In order for things to really change will require a British (or English) ethnicity, consisting of a common heritage, including a common language and a common language; this will take more than one generation.