Home » Posts tagged with » media (Page 332)

What. In. The. Hell. Have. We. Come. To ? One woman thinks she can predict the future of the economy based on Ben Bernanke ’s moon sign. (On a related note: What the heck is a moon sign?) She predicts that Bernanke will have great success sometime in the late summer/early fall, though this might not necessarily have anything to do with the economy. Maybe he wins a free ocean cruise vacation or something. And by October Bernanke is “really, really happy.” Well, that settles it, then. Show’s over, folks, you can all go home! The Fed Chairman is scheduled to be really, really happy in about four months’ time, so you have absolutely nothing to worry about! What’s particularly hilarious about this segment is how seriously Taylor seems to take this subject and how she tries to talk about serious economic subjects with individuals who make a living making up random crap about people’s lives. Her attempts to discuss unemployment figures and the debt ceiling with psychics are about as useful as discussions of foreign policy with Call of Duty players. Bang. Head. On. Desk. I get the fun aspect of psychics, horoscopes, etc. I check my and my husband’s horoscope in the paper. A psychic once told my husband that he would marry late in life and have two kids, which turned out to be true. But asking psychics to predict the state of the economy based on Bernanke’s moon sign? OMG. If I can get meta for a moment, I really think this is more insidious than stupid. The pundits that we see everyday on the 24 hour cable channels are no more qualified to predict the future of the economy than these psychics. Really, what special knowledge does Bill Kristol or Pat Buchanan have that qualify them? But there’s a subtle message by relegating discussion of the economy to psychics that economic recovery is something that is up to chance, or the stars, or Providence. That it’s something that takes a special sense to understand and that is just frankly b.s. of the highest order. Economics is not that mystical, nor is it that difficult to understand. But as long as the media keeps it something beyond explanation, you foster a sense of hopelessness and helplessness among the viewers, which makes them far more dependent upon experts.

Continue reading …
BBC attacked over coverage of ‘misleading’ methadone report

DrugScope charity says BBC’s failure to check thinktank’s findings risks stigmatising recovering heroin addicts The BBC has been drawn into an increasingly bitter row surrounding the merits and costs of treating heroin addicts. The charity DrugScope has written to the corporation complaining about its coverage of a report by a rightwing thinktank, the Centre for Policy Studies, that warned the prescription of the heroin substitute methadone was “entrenching addiction”. The report, Breaking the Habit , said prescribing addicts with methadone had been an expensive failure and claimed there were 320,000 problem drug users on benefits, costing the taxpayer billions of pounds. The row has highlighted the increasingly polarised nature of the debate on treatment for heroin addicts. Last year the prime minister, David Cameron, described methadone as “a government-authorised form of opium”. The centre’s report claims there are as many addicts today as there were in 2004-05. It notes: “Fewer than 4% of addicts emerge from treatment free from dependency. Drug deaths have continued to rise.” The thinktank suggested that instead of prescribing methadone, greater success would be achieved by funding small rehabilitation units that would encourage abstinence on a payment by results basis. Its hard-hitting claims have attracted extensive coverage and last week provoked a national debate on drug addiction treatment. While many in the drug treatment industry welcomed the centre’s call to reconsider how the UK treats long-term addicts, the thinktank has been attacked over “misleading” figures. DrugScope said that it had written to the BBC to complain that, by giving extensive coverage to the report, the corporation had failed “to check the accuracy of claims made, particularly about the cost of treatment and methadone prescribing”. Martin Barnes, DrugScope’s chief executive, asked why the corporation had repeated the report’s claim that “methadone prescribing costs £730m a year”, saying the figure was for the drug treatment system as a whole. Barnes outlined a series of further examples where he said the report had conflated the true cost of methadone treatment and benefits paid to drug addicts. He pointed out that last year the National Audit Office concluded that drug treatment represents “good value for money” for the taxpayer. Barnes said: “Not only are the misleading claims potentially damaging to public confidence in drug treatment at a time of spending cuts and competing priorities, they risk reinforcing the stigma and barriers many people in recovery experience.” A spokesman for the BBC confirmed it had received the complaint. BBC Drugs Health Jamie Doward guardian.co.uk

Continue reading …
Newstalgia Pop Chronicles: An Interview With The Jackson 5 – 1973

Click here to view this media ( The Jackson 5 – with Michael in front. Before it all got very complicated ) ( In remembrance of the2nd anniversary of the passing of Michael Jackson, I’m reposting this interview which originally appeared in 2009 ). With the tragic death of Michael Jackson, and the reverberations of his passing echoing around the world, I ran across an interview Michael and his brothers did in 1973. They had just arrived in New York on the third leg of a world tour – they were playing Madison Square Garden that particular night – the night being July 22, 1973. It was a sold out concert, as so many of them were. The Jackson 5 were at the pinnacle of their success – the world in many ways was still their oyster. Michael was the wise old age of 13. So this hour, recorded at radio station WWRL in New York features Michael all the brothers talking and joking – optimistic about the future, with that cocky assurance everything is possible, before it all got very serious and very out of control. Before it all changed.

Continue reading …
Legal aid reform could end right to a free solicitor

Law Society and former DPP Lord Macdonald voice alarm at proposal undermining ‘cornerstone’ of British justice A “cornerstone” of the legal system, the universal right to a solicitor upon arrest, could be jettisoned in favour of means-testing under controversial plans drawn up by the Ministry of Justice. Legal experts including Lord Ken Macdonald QC, a former director of public prosecutions, have expressed alarm at the proposal and questioned how it would work in practice. Legal aid charities said the new measure, which was quietly slipped into the legal aid, sentencing and punishing of offenders bill, had taken them completely by surprise and predicted that it would be subject to fierce debate in parliament. The proposal would effectively set a bar that would see people who are earning above a certain amount of money or who have access to a particular level of savings forced to pay for legal representation. “There are issues of principle here,” said Richard Miller, head of legal aid policy at the Law Society. “When someone is arrested they are in the power of the state, subject to the mercies of the police officers involved. “The purpose of having a solicitor acting for them is to ensure their rights are respected, that they are not physically abused, that their confessions are not forged and they are not detained for longer than legally allowed. “It’s been a cornerstone of our justice system for the last 25 years and the idea that it should be changed is entirely wrong.” The universal right to representation by a solicitor at a police station was enshrined in the 1984 Police and Criminal Evidence Act (Pace) in response to a series of serious miscarriages of justice in the 1970s and 80s involving unrepresented defendants. However, the government, which has already signalled its determination to cut some £350m from the legal aid budget, is keen to look for further savings. While a spokeswoman for the Ministry of Justice said it currently had “no plans” to introduce means-testing for legal representation upon arrest, she confirmed the new clause would give the government the power to introduce it if circumstances dictated. “The provision in the bill to permit means-testing ensures future flexibility over the operation of the legal aid system should it be needed,” the spokeswoman said. The confirmation drew a sharp response from Macdonald. “This is a critical part of the apparatus of protection that we have,” he said. “The presence of a lawyer doesn’t just protect the defendant from police, it protects the police from a defendant making up allegations about what happened, for instance during the course of an interrogation. I think the government should be very cautious about interfering in any way with the absolute right to representation in police stations. It’s there for a very good reason. When we didn’t have it ,we saw the consequences.” Legal bodies are concerned that the government plans to fast-track the legislation, which they claim will disadvantage the poor, through parliament. They complain that a second reading of the bill has been scheduled for Wednesday, which allows little time for adequate scrutiny of the details of the legislation. The justice secretary, Kenneth Clarke, insists that urgent cuts are necessary because England and Wales have “the most expensive legal aid system in the world”. However, Sound off for Justice, a campaign run by the Law Society, claims the figures are misleading and has outlined alternative ways to save money. Macdonald questioned whether the government’s plans would save the taxpayer money in the long run. “Often it is more expensive to administer means-testing than operate it. Who’s going to ask you what your earnings are or how much your mortgage is? We are talking about having to ask these questions in stressful situations. The whole thing would be very unwieldy.” Legal aid Solicitors Police UK criminal justice Jamie Doward guardian.co.uk

Continue reading …
Middle class face £35,000 bill to help pay for care in their old age

• Coalition split over new proposals on funding of social care • Review urges insurance policies to cover costs The middle classes should pay the first £35,000 of their old age care and be encouraged to take out insurance to cover that cost, according to a government-commissioned review into the future funding of social care to be published next week. The proposal will ignite the “death tax” row that led to a war of words between the Tories and the Labour government before the last election. The recommendations from economist Andrew Dilnot, which have been seen by the cabinet, are already causing a split within the coalition government, with one senior Liberal Democrat claiming chancellor George Osborne wants to “strangle the proposals at birth”. It is understood that the deputy prime minister, Nick Clegg, is in favour of the proposals but a source said that David Cameron and, in particular, Osborne appeared keen to “park the report in the long grass” because of the potential political pitfalls, and the financial commitments it would involve. There are growing fears that the prime minister will back his chancellor against the Liberal Democrats – including health minister Paul Burstow – who are broadly in favour of the proposals. Before the election last year there was a furious row about funding of care for the elderly after proposals about how much people should pay was agreed between the three parties before the Conservatives reneged, describing it as a Labour “death tax”. All parties agree that the black hole in funding for the elderly, which is expected to reach £6bn by 2020, needs a solution that will also take into account the growing numbers of older people. Currently, social care provided by councils is means tested. If someone needs residential care and has more than £23,250 in savings, capital or assets they have to pay for their care in full. Under the Dilnot proposals, there would be greater investment and, it is believed, a more generous means test would be brought in so that more people would be eligible for cover from the state. However, those with better than modest assets – the middle classes – would be required to cover costs. The amount they would need to pay would, however, be capped – which, it is believed, would encourage insurers to offer cover. But it is unclear how the problem of the middle classes moving their assets around so that they pass a means test would be resolved. Dilnot will say that there should be government investment of up to £3bn and that people should pay between £35,000 and £50,000 towards the costs of their care before the state steps in. But, crucially, the report will set out how conditions could be created in which a market for insurance would thrive, and the system would rely on the middle classes being encouraged to purchase cover for care costs. Under the current system, it is claimed, there are 800,000 older people who need care but do not receive it from the state, a figure that will increase to one

Continue reading …
Middle class face £35,000 bill to help pay for care in their old age

• Coalition split over new proposals on funding of social care • Review urges insurance policies to cover costs The middle classes should pay the first £35,000 of their old age care and be encouraged to take out insurance to cover that cost, according to a government-commissioned review into the future funding of social care to be published next week. The proposal will ignite the “death tax” row that led to a war of words between the Tories and the Labour government before the last election. The recommendations from economist Andrew Dilnot, which have been seen by the cabinet, are already causing a split within the coalition government, with one senior Liberal Democrat claiming chancellor George Osborne wants to “strangle the proposals at birth”. It is understood that the deputy prime minister, Nick Clegg, is in favour of the proposals but a source said that David Cameron and, in particular, Osborne appeared keen to “park the report in the long grass” because of the potential political pitfalls, and the financial commitments it would involve. There are growing fears that the prime minister will back his chancellor against the Liberal Democrats – including health minister Paul Burstow – who are broadly in favour of the proposals. Before the election last year there was a furious row about funding of care for the elderly after proposals about how much people should pay was agreed between the three parties before the Conservatives reneged, describing it as a Labour “death tax”. All parties agree that the black hole in funding for the elderly, which is expected to reach £6bn by 2020, needs a solution that will also take into account the growing numbers of older people. Currently, social care provided by councils is means tested. If someone needs residential care and has more than £23,250 in savings, capital or assets they have to pay for their care in full. Under the Dilnot proposals, there would be greater investment and, it is believed, a more generous means test would be brought in so that more people would be eligible for cover from the state. However, those with better than modest assets – the middle classes – would be required to cover costs. The amount they would need to pay would, however, be capped – which, it is believed, would encourage insurers to offer cover. But it is unclear how the problem of the middle classes moving their assets around so that they pass a means test would be resolved. Dilnot will say that there should be government investment of up to £3bn and that people should pay between £35,000 and £50,000 towards the costs of their care before the state steps in. But, crucially, the report will set out how conditions could be created in which a market for insurance would thrive, and the system would rely on the middle classes being encouraged to purchase cover for care costs. Under the current system, it is claimed, there are 800,000 older people who need care but do not receive it from the state, a figure that will increase to one

Continue reading …
Ed Miliband set for collision course with unions over Labour block vote

Labour leader refuses to back planned public sector strikes – and talks of ending ‘late-night deals’ at party conference Ed Miliband is to loosen the grip of trade union leaders over Labour policy-making as part of a sweeping modernisation drive that risks serious confrontation with the party’s traditional paymasters. The move to change historic links with the unions and open policy up more to ordinary members will alarm union bosses as they prepare this week for the first in a rolling programme of strikes against public-sector cuts. Miliband, who won the leadership race against his brother David with the help of union votes, signalled the move yesterday after he refused to back Thursday’s planned strike by up to 750,000 teachers, lecturers and civil servants. In a clear reference to the power union chiefs still exercise at the party’s annual conference, where they wield 50% of the vote, he said it was time for Labour to move on from “late-night deals, thrashed out in locked meeting rooms by a handful of people”. He added: “The best policy does not come from a few people locked in a room. It comes from conversations on the doorstep, at the school gate, in our workplaces.” Although Labour reduced union dominance under the leaderships of John Smith and Tony Blair, the three biggest unions, Unite, Unison and the GMB still control 40% of voting power. Miliband is acutely aware that he is vulnerable to charges of being the unions’ man as the country heads into what may be the most prolonged period of industrial strife since the 70s and 80s. His move – also high-risk as the unions provide much of Labour funding – came as senior figures in the government indicated they would be prepared to toughen anti-union legislation if the strikes seriously disrupted services. Ministers are examining plans to make it impossible to strike unless at least 40% of their members back action – rather than allowing them to be triggered by a simple majority of those who vote. They are also looking at banning public-sector workers from being employed as full-time union reps on the public purse and at imposing a legal duty on unions to ensure a minimum level of service in the event of a strike. One idea that Miliband may consider is reducing the proportion of the block vote at conferences. A balance had to be struck, he said, between the Labour of the 80s, when deals were stitched up behind closed doors and the 90s, when policy was made by a New Labour clique and conference was powerless. “We went from six people making decisions in a smoke-filled room in the 1980s to six people making the decisions from a sofa in Whitehall,” he said. Any reforms, however, will provoke heated debate and inevitable resistance. Such changes will need to be put to the party’s national executive committee and then be voted on by the party conference under its present rules. Miliband stressed that he was looking to strengthen not weaken the influence of individual union members in the party. “Nearly three million ordinary men and women – we call them trade union levy payers – are linked to this party. Nurses, call-centre workers, engineers, shop workers. We are unique in having that relationship with working people. But for years we have done nothing to reach out to these men and women. When did any of us see substantial numbers of them involved in our party?” He confirmed his intention to end elections for the shadow cabinet and to put ideas from local communities in front of Labour’s national policy-setting body. Conference would also be thrown open to non-members and wider civil society. Acknowledging the shortcomings and in-fighting of the Blair and Brown governments of which he was a member, Miliband said: “Old Labour forgot about the public. New Labour forgot about the party. And, by the time we left office, we had lost touch with both. “That wasn’t all. We talked about the importance of solidarity and respect, but too often looked inwards, distracting us from the task of serving the country. The internal squabbles damaged our reputation and distracted us from the task of serving the country.” Michael Fallon, the Tory deputy chairman, rejected the idea that union influence would be diluted. “These trivial proposals today offer little real change and won’t reconnect Labour with the public. Ed Miliband cannot go on like this – failing to break the union hold over his party, failing to provide real change within his party, and failing to say sorry for the economic mess Labour left the country. “The unions elected Ed Miliband, are bankrolling his party, and he clearly doesn’t have the guts to stand up to them.” Ed Miliband Trade unions Labour Public sector cuts Public sector pay Public sector careers Public sector pensions Toby Helm guardian.co.uk

Continue reading …
Ed Miliband set for collision course with unions over Labour block vote

Labour leader refuses to back planned public sector strikes – and talks of ending ‘late-night deals’ at party conference Ed Miliband is to loosen the grip of trade union leaders over Labour policy-making as part of a sweeping modernisation drive that risks serious confrontation with the party’s traditional paymasters. The move to change historic links with the unions and open policy up more to ordinary members will alarm union bosses as they prepare this week for the first in a rolling programme of strikes against public-sector cuts. Miliband, who won the leadership race against his brother David with the help of union votes, signalled the move yesterday after he refused to back Thursday’s planned strike by up to 750,000 teachers, lecturers and civil servants. In a clear reference to the power union chiefs still exercise at the party’s annual conference, where they wield 50% of the vote, he said it was time for Labour to move on from “late-night deals, thrashed out in locked meeting rooms by a handful of people”. He added: “The best policy does not come from a few people locked in a room. It comes from conversations on the doorstep, at the school gate, in our workplaces.” Although Labour reduced union dominance under the leaderships of John Smith and Tony Blair, the three biggest unions, Unite, Unison and the GMB still control 40% of voting power. Miliband is acutely aware that he is vulnerable to charges of being the unions’ man as the country heads into what may be the most prolonged period of industrial strife since the 70s and 80s. His move – also high-risk as the unions provide much of Labour funding – came as senior figures in the government indicated they would be prepared to toughen anti-union legislation if the strikes seriously disrupted services. Ministers are examining plans to make it impossible to strike unless at least 40% of their members back action – rather than allowing them to be triggered by a simple majority of those who vote. They are also looking at banning public-sector workers from being employed as full-time union reps on the public purse and at imposing a legal duty on unions to ensure a minimum level of service in the event of a strike. One idea that Miliband may consider is reducing the proportion of the block vote at conferences. A balance had to be struck, he said, between the Labour of the 80s, when deals were stitched up behind closed doors and the 90s, when policy was made by a New Labour clique and conference was powerless. “We went from six people making decisions in a smoke-filled room in the 1980s to six people making the decisions from a sofa in Whitehall,” he said. Any reforms, however, will provoke heated debate and inevitable resistance. Such changes will need to be put to the party’s national executive committee and then be voted on by the party conference under its present rules. Miliband stressed that he was looking to strengthen not weaken the influence of individual union members in the party. “Nearly three million ordinary men and women – we call them trade union levy payers – are linked to this party. Nurses, call-centre workers, engineers, shop workers. We are unique in having that relationship with working people. But for years we have done nothing to reach out to these men and women. When did any of us see substantial numbers of them involved in our party?” He confirmed his intention to end elections for the shadow cabinet and to put ideas from local communities in front of Labour’s national policy-setting body. Conference would also be thrown open to non-members and wider civil society. Acknowledging the shortcomings and in-fighting of the Blair and Brown governments of which he was a member, Miliband said: “Old Labour forgot about the public. New Labour forgot about the party. And, by the time we left office, we had lost touch with both. “That wasn’t all. We talked about the importance of solidarity and respect, but too often looked inwards, distracting us from the task of serving the country. The internal squabbles damaged our reputation and distracted us from the task of serving the country.” Michael Fallon, the Tory deputy chairman, rejected the idea that union influence would be diluted. “These trivial proposals today offer little real change and won’t reconnect Labour with the public. Ed Miliband cannot go on like this – failing to break the union hold over his party, failing to provide real change within his party, and failing to say sorry for the economic mess Labour left the country. “The unions elected Ed Miliband, are bankrolling his party, and he clearly doesn’t have the guts to stand up to them.” Ed Miliband Trade unions Labour Public sector cuts Public sector pay Public sector careers Public sector pensions Toby Helm guardian.co.uk

Continue reading …
Milly Dowler case: Victims’ tsar to act following family’s court ordeal

Commissioner calls for changes in way witnesses are handled by judicial system as parents recover from ‘shocking’ treatment Britain’s courts will see sweeping changes in favour of the victims of serious crime in the light of the Milly Dowler murder trial, the victims’ commissioner has vowed. Louise Casey said she will put forward a report to the justice secretary Kenneth Clarke within the next two weeks which will conclude that the “shocking” treatment of the Dowler family during the trial of their daughter’s murderer is just part of a wider picture that has seen dozens of relatives devastated by experiences with the justice system. Casey, the commissioner for victims and witnesses, said: “My report’s recommendations for change will be taken seriously and acted upon at the highest levels.” She welcomed yesterday’s comments from Mark Rowley, the chief constable of Surrey police, who said he was “shocked” by the way Milly’s family were cross-examined and their personal lives thrown into the spotlight during the trial of serial killer Levi Bellfield, who was jailed for life on Thursday at the Old Bailey. Rowley also called for changes in the way the courts treated witnesses and said it was a “most bizarre and distressing coincidence” that the Dowler family had their privacy “destroyed” at the same time as celebrities were granted super-injunctions to protect details of their personal lives. “Here is someone who doesn’t want celebrity, whose daughter has been killed, but is being vilified and humiliated. It is completely incongruous and unnecessary.” He said that victims and witnesses were the “lifeblood” of the justice system. “Unless we treat them carefully and thoughtfully, fundamentally it undermines the system in the long term. Somehow we need to find a different way into the system that looks at, with equal vigour: how can we care for the victims and witnesses in these cases, while testing the evidence, and how do we protect privacy as well? “I’m not saying, ‘Never go personal,’ but if you go personal then, for goodness sake, think about the dignity of the people involved. There needs to be stronger practice advice so judges are not worried about appeal by restricting defence questioning.” The director of public prosecutions, Keir Starmer QC, said the Bellfield trial had raised “fundamental questions” about the treatment of witnesses in the courtroom. Casey said she welcomed the comments of both Starmer and Rowley. “I very much hope that the shock and anger that many people feel about the lack of dignity, respect and protection that the Criminal Justice System afforded to the Dowlers will mean that, when my report into the treatment of those bereaved by murder, manslaughter and culpable road death is published in the next couple of weeks, its recommendations for change will be taken seriously and acted upon at the highest level,” she said yesterday. Insiders said Casey had been moved by the families she had met over the past year and shocked by some of their experiences, and was in no mood to accept compromises on her recommendations. Both Milly’s parents had broken down in court after being cross-examined by a defence trying to prove she was unhappy and alienated from her family. But many legal experts are wary of change restricting every person’s right to a full and vigorous defence. John Cooper, QC, an elected member of the Bar Council and visiting Professor of Law at Cardiff University, defended the rigour of British justice system: “We should not let Levi Bellfield hijack the criminal justice system. The system and the process works well, day in day out, up and down the country. It is there to ensure there are no miscarriages of justice and the prosecution case is tested in accordance with the defendant’s instructions, whether those instructions are palatable or not. “It is important in any democratic society for a defendant’s case, however repulsive it may seem, to be put at trial to be accepted or, as was in this case, rejected by a jury.” Mark Leech, editor of the national prisoners’ newspaper ConVerse , said calls for reform were unnecessary: “The judge already acts as a safeguard to unnecessary and intrusive questioning which falls outside what is legitimate to the defence.” Milly Dowler Judiciary UK criminal justice Crime Tracy McVeigh Jamie Doward guardian.co.uk

Continue reading …
Treasury urges British banks to take big losses to help Greece avoid meltdown

Effort to persuade banks to take hit comes despite David Cameron’s assurance that UK taxpayers will not foot the bill Britain’s banks will be urged by the Treasury to take multimillion pound losses as part of Europe-wide plans to prevent a catastrophic meltdown of the Greek financial system. Despite the assurance of prime minister David Cameron that the UK taxpayer will not pay towards the latest EU bailout of Greece, Treasury officials are working behind the scenes to persuade British banks holding Greek bonds to take a “haircut” now as the best way to avert a potential global crisis. Britain’s banks hold about £2.5bn of Greek bonds. One idea, proposed by Germany, is that the banks would be persuaded to swap Greek bonds for loans on less favourable terms when they expire – a so-called “soft restructuring” that would help ease the pain for Athens. Politicians across the EU are battling to secure “private sector involvement” in the Greek rescue alongside government and IMF help in the hope of preventing Athens from defaulting on its debts, a move they fear could start a ripple effect in world markets. Analysts say even a debt swap, under which Athens would pay its debts over a longer period, would leave bondholders facing a reduction in the value of their investment. But officials argue that only if private banks take a hit now can the damage be limited. The Treasury so far has been on the sidelines of EU discussions about how to ensure private sector creditors play their part, partly because of Cameron’s insistence that UK taxpayers will not help to finance a second Greek bailout. Cameron’s refusal to put money into the latest rescue led to criticism of the UK’s stance behind the scenes at a summit in Brussels last week. Senior European figures said London needed to focus more urgently on the potential effect of a Greek default on the UK’s banking sector and economy. “The UK has the third largest exposure after France and Germany,” said a high-level EU source. “It should be aware of the effect of standing aside from discussions.” But Whitehall insiders have confirmed that chancellor George Osborne’s staff are on the case, working on ways to involve British bondholders in rescue moves that will almost certainly involve a short-term hit. Another worry is that Britain’s banks and hedge funds have written multibillion-pound insurance contracts – in the form of credit default swaps – that would be triggered if Greece defaults. Erik Britton, director of City consultancy Fathom, said: “It’s not the direct exposure, it’s the indirect exposure and the implications of an unruly default that I would be worried about. French and German banks bought Greek bonds, and they took out insurance against default. Who did they take out that insurance with? The US and UK banks. There has to be a loser – who’s the loser?” A fresh bailout for Greece will go ahead on condition that its parliament votes for new austerity and reform programmes on Tuesday. It is expected to total about €110bn, with about €30bn coming from bondholders, €30bn from privatisations, and the rest from eurozone members and the International Monetary Fund. Persuading the private sector to play a part is seen as crucial to the chances of averting a Greek disaster and was a key part of German chancellor Angela Merkel’s pitch in Brussels. Without this, EU leaders fear Greece will default, triggering payouts on a web of complex financial insurance products and creating chaos in world markets as investors struggle to work out who owes what to whom. Some analysts fear default could create a “Lehman moment”, like the aftermath of the collapse of the giant US investment bank in 2008, when investors lost confidence in each other and the world financial system froze up. At the inaugural press conference for the Bank of England’s new financial policy committee on Friday, governor Sir Mervyn King described the deteriorating situation in the eurozone as a “mess” and warned that, although Britain’s banks own a relatively small number of Greek bonds – about £3bn worth – there could be dramatic knock-on effects if a default resulted in a loss of confidence throughout the global financial system. That gives Treasury officials a strong incentive to ensure that the banks sign up. Without a voluntary agreement from investors, the powerful credit ratings agencies will declare that Greece has defaulted, spreading chaos through financial markets. US Federal Reserve governor Ben Bernanke last week urged European governments to resolve the Greek crisis or risk threatening “the European financial system, global financial system, and European political unity”. Treasury insiders admit that, by staying out of the Greek rescue talks, the City’s voice has been lost so far. European debt crisis Greece Euro Banking Europe Heather Stewart Toby Helm guardian.co.uk

Continue reading …