Rebekah Brooks has returned as CEO of News U.K. a post she was forced to resign four years ago under threat of imminent arrest.
Brooks could be on an annual pay packet of as much as £3m if she is paid in line with her predecessors, so no tax credits required here. It is possible she has received 16 million over the last four years in the wilderness.
But what of the outstanding court cases?
The CPS [Crown Prosecution Service] is considering bringing corporate charges against News International [now News UK] over phone hacking.
Chris Bryant the Shadow culture secretary, last week referred to reports of Brooks’ imminent return as “two fingers up to the British public”, said her failure to handle the phone-hacking scandal raised questions about her competency to lead the company. “So far as I can see, Rebekah Brooks’ defence was that she was incompetent and had no idea what was going on and the end result was that the company lost £300m,” he said. “It mystifies me that Rupert Murdoch would want to reappoint her.”
Has Rupert Murdoch brought her back because she is incompetent, hardly has he brought her back to trade in the courts for a deal, maybe or has he brought her back because he has no choice due to what happened during the scandal?
We should find out over the coming weeks.
Thursday, 17 September 2015
Wednesday, 16 September 2015
Oil price
Goldman Sachs says the global-oil market will remain in a supply surplus until the fourth quarter of 2016 and hence the forecast that oil could hit a new low of $20 a barrel.
OPEC isn’t even trying to help stem the flow of oil or the drop in prices.
In recent years, the shale boom and increased production from the U.S. has greatly reduced OPEC’s ability to dominate world oil markets. OPEC must also deal with the fact that more oil will be coming to the global market, which will further exacerbate the glut of supplies because of Indonesian and Iranian oil.
OPEC isn’t even trying to help stem the flow of oil or the drop in prices.
In recent years, the shale boom and increased production from the U.S. has greatly reduced OPEC’s ability to dominate world oil markets. OPEC must also deal with the fact that more oil will be coming to the global market, which will further exacerbate the glut of supplies because of Indonesian and Iranian oil.
Tuesday, 15 September 2015
The Russian Bear
Vladimir Putin President of Russia has started to move his troops to Syria seeing an opportunity to move West. Is this enough for the UK government to act decisively?
There have been growing numbers of Russian troops over the last two months that have been sent to a Russian naval maintenance facility in Tartus, in western Syria. There is talk of moving the Russian naval base at Tartus to Rmaileh, north of Jableh. Large Russian ships currently have to be unloaded at Latakia. Relocating the base to Rmaileh would resolve the capacity problem and provide the Russian military deployment with a more integrated structure.
One of the reasons these movements are happening now relate directly to Turkey’s efforts to create a safe zone north of Aleppo in northern Syria. Russia opposes the zone, which would be located about 93 miles from Jableh.
Although it might appear the Russian activity at Jableh is designed to boost Syrian army operations, to strengthen the regime's political efforts and fight against IS, the long-term goal is a new military strategic balance in the region and Putin's aggressive land grab.
Putin must be thinking that the risk is worth taking, and the main reason to think so is the calculation that now Russia will have locked the West out of the conflict in Syria – at least as far as fighting the Assad regime goes.
Today’s UK politicians say the answer to the refugee crisis is at source, well the Russian President seems to have beaten them to it.
There have been growing numbers of Russian troops over the last two months that have been sent to a Russian naval maintenance facility in Tartus, in western Syria. There is talk of moving the Russian naval base at Tartus to Rmaileh, north of Jableh. Large Russian ships currently have to be unloaded at Latakia. Relocating the base to Rmaileh would resolve the capacity problem and provide the Russian military deployment with a more integrated structure.
One of the reasons these movements are happening now relate directly to Turkey’s efforts to create a safe zone north of Aleppo in northern Syria. Russia opposes the zone, which would be located about 93 miles from Jableh.
Although it might appear the Russian activity at Jableh is designed to boost Syrian army operations, to strengthen the regime's political efforts and fight against IS, the long-term goal is a new military strategic balance in the region and Putin's aggressive land grab.
Putin must be thinking that the risk is worth taking, and the main reason to think so is the calculation that now Russia will have locked the West out of the conflict in Syria – at least as far as fighting the Assad regime goes.
Today’s UK politicians say the answer to the refugee crisis is at source, well the Russian President seems to have beaten them to it.
Monday, 14 September 2015
Assisted Dying
Parliament has overwhelmingly rejected amending the bill, are they really this out of touch with the public?
Two principles; First, that the criminal law should rarely [if ever] be used against those who compassionately assist a loved one to die at their request - so long as that person had reached a voluntary, clear, settled and informed decision to end their life. Second that very strong safeguards are needed to protect those who might be pressurised [in any number of ways] into taking their own lives: those who encourage the death of the vulnerable should feel the full force of the law.
However, over the years it has become increasingly clear that there are two inherent limitations in the guidelines. The first is that although those who have reached a voluntary, clear, settled and informed decision to end their lives can now be confident of the compassionate assistance of loved ones without automatically exposing them to the criminal law, the only assistance they can be provided with is the amateur help of those nearest and dearest.
The second inherent limitation in the guidelines goes to the heart of the argument advanced by those who do not want any change in the law. They rightly point to the risk that some people might be pressurised or encouraged to take their own lives by those who do not have their best interests at heart; and argue the blanket criminalisation of assisted suicide, subject to the operation of the guidelines, offers the best protection against abuse.
The safeguards in the Assisted Dying Bill proposed by Rob Marris MP are certainly strong and robust. A person may only be provided with assistance to end his or her life if a High Court judge sitting in the Family Division, by order confirms that he or she is satisfied that the person has a voluntary, clear, settled and informed wish to end his or her own life. An order can only be made if the person in question has made a declaration about their wish to end their life, which must be counter-signed by a witness who must not be a relative or a person directly involved in the person's care or treatment. And only those diagnosed by a registered medical practitioner as having a terminal illness and less than six months' life expectancy may apply to the High Court.
So, in the end, the question before Parliament last Friday was whether we have got the balance right under the current law. At the moment, those with a voluntary, clear, settled and informed decision to end their lives can receive assistance to commit suicide, but only the amateur assistance of loved ones unless they have the means and physical ability to travel to Dignitas in Switzerland. Professional medical assistance so that they can die with dignity and in peace at home is denied.
Parliament had the opportunity to re-balance the law in this difficult and sensitive area and they failed.
Two principles; First, that the criminal law should rarely [if ever] be used against those who compassionately assist a loved one to die at their request - so long as that person had reached a voluntary, clear, settled and informed decision to end their life. Second that very strong safeguards are needed to protect those who might be pressurised [in any number of ways] into taking their own lives: those who encourage the death of the vulnerable should feel the full force of the law.
However, over the years it has become increasingly clear that there are two inherent limitations in the guidelines. The first is that although those who have reached a voluntary, clear, settled and informed decision to end their lives can now be confident of the compassionate assistance of loved ones without automatically exposing them to the criminal law, the only assistance they can be provided with is the amateur help of those nearest and dearest.
The second inherent limitation in the guidelines goes to the heart of the argument advanced by those who do not want any change in the law. They rightly point to the risk that some people might be pressurised or encouraged to take their own lives by those who do not have their best interests at heart; and argue the blanket criminalisation of assisted suicide, subject to the operation of the guidelines, offers the best protection against abuse.
The safeguards in the Assisted Dying Bill proposed by Rob Marris MP are certainly strong and robust. A person may only be provided with assistance to end his or her life if a High Court judge sitting in the Family Division, by order confirms that he or she is satisfied that the person has a voluntary, clear, settled and informed wish to end his or her own life. An order can only be made if the person in question has made a declaration about their wish to end their life, which must be counter-signed by a witness who must not be a relative or a person directly involved in the person's care or treatment. And only those diagnosed by a registered medical practitioner as having a terminal illness and less than six months' life expectancy may apply to the High Court.
So, in the end, the question before Parliament last Friday was whether we have got the balance right under the current law. At the moment, those with a voluntary, clear, settled and informed decision to end their lives can receive assistance to commit suicide, but only the amateur assistance of loved ones unless they have the means and physical ability to travel to Dignitas in Switzerland. Professional medical assistance so that they can die with dignity and in peace at home is denied.
Parliament had the opportunity to re-balance the law in this difficult and sensitive area and they failed.
Friday, 11 September 2015
Savers beware
The Bank of England yesterday announced [as expected] that interest rates would not change and remain at the ludicrously low 0.5% which means we are not producing enough, we are not spending enough and of course who would save at 0.5%.
On the other hand the Treasury is quietly getting on with it. It quietly announced yesterday that it was unveiling its Autumn Statement alongside its spending review on November 25, and getting on with it means cutting spending. The summer Budget this year went as smoothly as the Chancellor had hoped, in part because there was no official analysis of the impact of his national living wage on in-work benefit cuts.
But since then there have been think tanks number crunching and today the IFS verdict is that the NLW offsets just 13% of the other cuts to household income in the Budget. And that 13% is exactly the same figure the Resolution Foundation came up with recently.
For a short period of very low interest rates, savers might be prepared to dip into their capital to maintain their spending. But the longer this period of extremely low interest rates continues, the more likely it is that savers will start to cut back to reflect their lower income. So the benefit that the economy receives from low borrowing costs is offset by lower spending from savers, and this low rate has been in place for over eight years.
So what exactly has to happen to get decent rates?
On the other hand the Treasury is quietly getting on with it. It quietly announced yesterday that it was unveiling its Autumn Statement alongside its spending review on November 25, and getting on with it means cutting spending. The summer Budget this year went as smoothly as the Chancellor had hoped, in part because there was no official analysis of the impact of his national living wage on in-work benefit cuts.
But since then there have been think tanks number crunching and today the IFS verdict is that the NLW offsets just 13% of the other cuts to household income in the Budget. And that 13% is exactly the same figure the Resolution Foundation came up with recently.
For a short period of very low interest rates, savers might be prepared to dip into their capital to maintain their spending. But the longer this period of extremely low interest rates continues, the more likely it is that savers will start to cut back to reflect their lower income. So the benefit that the economy receives from low borrowing costs is offset by lower spending from savers, and this low rate has been in place for over eight years.
So what exactly has to happen to get decent rates?
Thursday, 10 September 2015
Two Days
Yes, two days to go until we find out who is the next leader of the labour party is.
Bookies position at 06:00 on 10-Sep-2015:-
Jeremy Corbyn (1/6) odds on favourite
Yvette Cooper (15/2)
Andy Burnham (10/1)
Liz Kendall (200/1)
Of course the bookies are not taking into consideration the balloting rules of sorting through each candidate as the votes are used and are only concerned with a first past the post system.
There has been speculation that Jeremy Corbyn will romp home on the first process, however, when the second stage kicks in the second place votes will allow one of the other three to charge forward.
I consider this a rather optimistic view as I suspect Jeremy Corbyn will hold the first place through all the processes the Labour Leadership have to comply with.
Roll on Saturday.
Bookies position at 06:00 on 10-Sep-2015:-
Jeremy Corbyn (1/6) odds on favourite
Yvette Cooper (15/2)
Andy Burnham (10/1)
Liz Kendall (200/1)
Of course the bookies are not taking into consideration the balloting rules of sorting through each candidate as the votes are used and are only concerned with a first past the post system.
There has been speculation that Jeremy Corbyn will romp home on the first process, however, when the second stage kicks in the second place votes will allow one of the other three to charge forward.
I consider this a rather optimistic view as I suspect Jeremy Corbyn will hold the first place through all the processes the Labour Leadership have to comply with.
Roll on Saturday.
Tuesday, 8 September 2015
Nonprime
This is the new name of Subprime mortgages.
Gone are the days when lenders handed out mortgages without requiring documentation and down payments. Today’s purveyors of subprime call the loans ’nonprime’ and require as much as 30 percent down to safeguard their investment. And they see a big opportunity for growth as tougher federal lending standards shut out millions of people with poor credit from the mortgage market.
One statement that came out of America concerning this earlier this year was “You’re going to have to make all types of loans, ones that conform to all the new standards and ones that don’t, to keep powering the housing recovery, there needs to be a solution for people who don’t fit in the box, and rebuilding nonprime lending is it.”
The current level of subprime lending is a trickle compared with the flood that helped spur the housing boom. The loans are made to the riskiest borrowers, with low credit scores, high levels of debt and inconsistent income.
Investors are taking a pass on subprime for now. Lenders have to either hold onto their loans or sell them to private equity firms until they establish a strong enough track record to offer mortgage-backed securities to investors.
The bundling of subprime mortgages into securities to sell to investors will not be viable for a few years. Investors will not buy subprime bonds unless the mortgages have low loan-to-value [a comparison of the mortgage balance to the worth of the home] and borrowers have proven their income.
The question arises why does it have to be connected with subprime even in name only, why did they not just release a new product that was viable for the market?
Gone are the days when lenders handed out mortgages without requiring documentation and down payments. Today’s purveyors of subprime call the loans ’nonprime’ and require as much as 30 percent down to safeguard their investment. And they see a big opportunity for growth as tougher federal lending standards shut out millions of people with poor credit from the mortgage market.
One statement that came out of America concerning this earlier this year was “You’re going to have to make all types of loans, ones that conform to all the new standards and ones that don’t, to keep powering the housing recovery, there needs to be a solution for people who don’t fit in the box, and rebuilding nonprime lending is it.”
The current level of subprime lending is a trickle compared with the flood that helped spur the housing boom. The loans are made to the riskiest borrowers, with low credit scores, high levels of debt and inconsistent income.
Investors are taking a pass on subprime for now. Lenders have to either hold onto their loans or sell them to private equity firms until they establish a strong enough track record to offer mortgage-backed securities to investors.
The bundling of subprime mortgages into securities to sell to investors will not be viable for a few years. Investors will not buy subprime bonds unless the mortgages have low loan-to-value [a comparison of the mortgage balance to the worth of the home] and borrowers have proven their income.
The question arises why does it have to be connected with subprime even in name only, why did they not just release a new product that was viable for the market?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)