Thursday 30 April 2009

Should we really be worried about swine flu?


This week has been the week of swine flu. It came from Mexico, spread to the USA and then moved overseas, including to the UK. As I write there are apparently 230 possible cases in the UK alone. A worrying business then?

Well perhaps not. It is not long ago that the world was in panic over the SARS outbreak. I remember getting off a plane at the time and having to fill in reams of paperwork before I could get off the plane. Luckily in this case it soon petered out.

Then there was the widepspread alarm over Bird flu, where we were warned this virus could cover the globe and cause savage destruction. I remember watching the news, where a map was shown plotting the advance of this terrible affliction, but once again it disappeared and was soon forgotten about.

Now it is the turn of swine flu. It is obviously a tragedy that in Mexico, eight people have died, but soldiers die all the time in places like Afghanistan and get little mention on the news. Just because the cause was flu, does this make these deaths more important?

Of course this is an irrational argument, but the "level 5" danger that we are told we are in could alarm people. It should be remembered that only nine people have died so far from the disease and most patients have responded well to treatment.

So the British government's advertisement campaign introduced today, could make things worse. "Catch it, kill it, bin it" is the catchy slogan for stopping germs spreading, but surely stopping your snot hitting people is something most people would do anyway. Do we really need the government to tell us how to sneeze?

The distribution of leaflets is another tool in their armoury. They give information about the virus and how to combat it. This may all be a little pointless. The World Health Organisation have admitted that it is now impossible to contain the outbreak, so why do we need all of this advice?

By giving people too much information, there is a strong risk that people will worry unnecessarily about catching swine flu, and that will not help the situation at all. By trying to help people, the government may well have made things worse.

Another negative for this advertising campaign is the cost. Surely distributing leaflets to every home in the UK and making TV and radio adverts is an expensive operation. At a time when the country is deep in recession, this could appear misguided.

So far there have been 212 confirmed cases of swine flu across the world and nine deaths. Without twenty four hour mass media, one must ask the question; would this be such a big story? Twenty four hour news is generally a good thing, as it gets the news to people fast, but when there is little news to update a story this can cause problems.

Taking the example of swine flu, the news channels have filled their air-time with spurious suggestions from so-called experts about what "might" happen. The word "might" is key here, as nobody really knows what will happen and conjecture is certainly not news.

Of course swine flu may end up killing us all, making the government's leaflets useless, but if most of us survive, will Gordon Brown have saved us from certain armageddon? I think not. Even the politicians can not control our sneezes, however much they would like to.

Wednesday 15 April 2009

Damian McBride gives Gordon Brown a headache


The news broke on Saturday, that one of Gordon Brown's closest aides had been sending vicious emails meant to 'smear' top Conservative figures. Shock, outrage, despair!

Of course though, one may say that these kinds of dirty tricks are nothing new in politics and that we should all move on and talk about something far more serious such as the worsening economy.

However, the fact that the Prime Minister allowed such an individual to work so closely with him is surely a worry. In these emails, McBride allegedly attacked the mental health of George Osborne's wife, which is surely below the belt.

There is indeed no room for this kind of 'smear' in politics but the Tories should be careful not to take too high a moral line when criticising McBride's actions. This may just come back to haunt them.

During the continued row on expenses both parties have resisted talking about allegations in the house of commons in too much detail, both in the knowledge that they probably have more skeletons lurking in the closet.

With someone like Peter Mandelson around, the Tories should be very weary indeed of appearing to openly attack Brown's government too veraciously.

Oleg Deripaska is a name that should be remembered, especially by Osborne. In this case Osborne tried to smear Mandelson but not surprisingly the shadow Chancellor came out worse.

Both parties of course have their failings but the Damian McBride issue is not really party political. Does it for example, highlight a worrying culture at the heart of government, where smearing has become acceptable, no matter what the truth acually is?

Certainly it is worrying that Gordon Brown kept McBride so close, but does this paint Brown as a bad judge of character or merely ignorant? Neither of these assumptions are probably true so why was McBride able to do what he did?

The answer may be that McBride did what he did, because he thought his boss wanted him to do it. This is worrying, because if true it suggests that Brown promoted a culture of 'smear' against his opponents.

This is perhaps too cynical and Brown if nothing else does at least appear to be a sincere politician. It was then to many people's astonishment that he refused to personally apologise for the emails.

True, the PM did not send the emails himself so he is not personally responsible, but in most organisations the buck stops with the man at the top and this issue could have had a line drawn under it far earlier had Brown apologised immediately.

Brown did send hand written letters to all of the top tories who had been smeared, expressing his "deep regret" but the word sorry was not included. This is no real surprise but a small sorry could perhaps have eased the pressure on number 10.

So here we are on Wednesday and the story is still in the news. Who knows, maybe it will distract people from their economic woes and they will go out and spend some money.

Every cloud.....





Monday 6 April 2009

The week that was - the G20

Last week the leaders of the G20 agreed to a $1.1 trillion package of financial measures which could have a massive effect on the health of the worldwide economy.

The IMF will be a main beneficiary of this agreement, as its coffers swell to $750 billion. Presumably this money will not be used to help the stretched UK economy but many other countries should benefit from the IMF's help.



Tax havens were another part of the agreement, as leaders promised to come down hard on areas such as the Channel Islands and Monaco, but this may be more symbolic than anything else.

Most Monte Carlo residents will have clever accountants who are paid a lot of money to get around financial regulation, but nevertheles this sets down a positive marker and is one step in the right direction.

Nicolas Sarkozy threatened to walk out of the summit if regulation was not boosted, but even he said that the talks achieved "more than we could have hoped for". This will have been a relief for many, not least Gordon Brown, the host leader.

Confidence

The biggest thing to come out of the G20 though was the projection of confidence. President Obama called the summmit "a turning point" in pursuing economic recovery and if this kind of rhetoric inspires confidence then the meeting will have done its job.

The large sums of money are obviously important but the sight of world leaders working together could have just as big of an impact. Confidence is a key part of any economy and if people see things getting better in the future, then consumers are more likley to start spending again.

More important than this though, is confidence within the banks and it will be interesting to see if the banks do begin to loosen their hold on the purse strings. If this happens, then things could improve, but this is a big 'if'.

What must be reiterated is that it will take time for any of the measures agreed to have any impact. So in the meantime the leaders have to try and inspire confidence. The meeting on Thursday was a strong attempt at this.

Brown boosted?

In my last post I said that Brown was gambling his political future on the outcome of the G20 talks, but this was not completely accurate. It now seems clear that Brown knew what would be agreed well before Thursday's summit.

This being the case, he knew he could build up the outcome without much risk of calamity. It could well be the case that the measures will not have the desired effect of boosting the world economy, but right now Brown is in credit.

Before the summit his poll ratings were not looking good, but their decline could now begin to slow. 'Gordon the world leader' is how he would love to be seen and by hosting the apparently successful G20 he may believe that he has achieved this.

In reality Brown is not seen quite in this light, but the summit has certainly not done his image any harm. Indeed many of the British newspapers were very favourable towards Brown's involvement.

The Guardian wrote "Gordon Brown brokers massive financial aid deal for global economy", clearly putting Brown at the centre of the action. Brown's spin doctors would have been thrilled.

Of course this may not last for long, but Brown will bask in this reflective glory for as long as possible. It should be remembered that people will continue to lose their jobs and last week's meeting will soon be forgotten.

Cameron

In terms of where all of this puts the Tories, it is unclear. Obama did meet David Cameron but as an opposition leader there is not much that one can do in such situations except perhaps support the actions taken.

Cameron will not have benefitted from Brown's hosting of the G20 but his party's position has not changed all that much. Last week's events do look good for Brown, but they will not make him instantly electable.

The future

The results of the G20 summit are currently unknown in the long term, but in the short term they will certainly be positive. In times of crisis people want to see their leaders standing shoulder to shoulder.

This may only have happened for a few hours but it was an important symbol all the same. The fact remains though, time will tell if it will make any real difference to the world economy and all we can do is sit and wait.