UKIP - Fruit Cake to Humble Pie

It’s exactly a fortnight since a seismic shock began reverberating through the bedrock of British party politics, as a fourth tectonic plate barged its way in alongside the three that had, for a generation previously, formed the foundations of Westminster’s power structure.

The United Kingdom Independence Party was by no means a new presence on the scene, and they had already done (and moreover, said) enough to unsettle some within the Conservative Party – but never had those forebodings been borne out at the ballot box, nor had anyone imagined the scale of the intrusion that these unwelcome guests could achieve in one day.

David Cameron himself had once dismissed the party as “a bunch of fruitcakes and loonies”.

But led by its irrepressibly charismatic leader, Nigel Farage, and (helpfully) at a time when the Tories are in a twist over Europe – ironically UKIP’s main stage until now – the party attracted the same share of the vote in wards in which they fielded candidates as the Conservatives themselves did nationwide.

Since that night, the Prime Minister has been torn between the obvious need to keep faith with the centre-right position that (just) restored his party to power, and the growing importance of ensuring that its core voters and members are not drawn in by his new rival’s breakthrough.

One of his party’s highest-profile MPs is even talking about electoral pacts.

Admittedly, protest votes in local elections are inevitable at this stage of any government, never mind one that is pursuing such an unpopular set of policies – but this time it’s different. Rarely does such a result have an impact much beyond the weekend papers and the credibility of the victors, but the government is clearly shaken by UKIP’s abrupt emergence.

Unusually for him, Farage wasn’t exaggerating when he talked about a game- changer. And not surprisingly, the main subject of contention so far has been Britain’s relationship with Europe.

Having already promised an in-out referendum in the event of EU rule changes that affect Britain, Cameron is now facing demands for an unconditional pledge, from Tory backbenchers doubtless unnerved by fresh doubts about their job prospects, and angered by the absence of a draft referendum bill in last week’s Queen’s Speech (although one has now been proposed).

The posturing and positioning ahead of the 2015 election has already well and truly begun.

Whatever goes on in the Westminster village, though, by far the biggest danger for the political establishment – especially the Conservatives, and as usual, the one they seem least aware of – is that they could all end up alienating many more voters than UKIP could ever hope to gain on their own, by appearing hopelessly out of touch with ordinary people’s priorities.

Meanwhile, the task for UKIP (once the warm glow of victory wears off) is to demonstrate their credibility by making a meaningful contribution in local government. Little is currently known about their domestic policies, but their success gives them a valuable platform from which to launch an assault on the three main parties where it really hurts – at a general election.

The party should not underestimate the size of its task – it took the Lib Dems a generation (not to mention a succession of leaders) to go from fringe force to serious players. The first step is often the hardest – yet theirs has been a colossal leap. And in what is, anyway, an era of uncertainty and instability in British politics, the establishment has every right to be anxious.

Never mind fruit cake – it’s humble pie on the menu in Downing Street.

Benefits, Bluster... and Betraying Beveridge

Today, with much contrived fanfare, saw the launch of the government’s flagship welfare reform – the Universal Credit. The aim is to simplify the benefits system by combining six confusing and often overlapping entitlements into a single, personalised payment.

It’s a big change – perhaps a little too big – with embarrassingly humble beginnings.

Not that anyone should be surprised. Over the last few years, the authorities have had enough trouble implementing new infrastructure designed merely to bring Britain’s tax and benefits system up to scratch for the 21st century; this new system has required further investment – and governments do not exactly have a good track record of delivering major IT projects.

Consequently, the timescale that has been talked about by the Work and Pensions Secretary, Iain Duncan Smith, since the election and beyond has slipped; so have the budget targets. Today, the scheme came into force with a whimper – a pilot in a single town near Manchester.

That didn’t stop the former Conservative leader trumpeting the move as the epitome of the government’s strategy to get more people off benefits and into employment by making work pay; this is to be achieved by preventing individuals from being able to claim a multitude of benefits that were intended for the particular circumstances of different groups of people.

The reform, he said, is about “changing people”.

In reality, though, it’s what happens to the benefits themselves – rather than how they are claimed – that will stimulate changes in behaviour. Genuinely tough policies such as the (bafflingly controversial) benefits cap will have a far greater impact on people’s disposable incomes and hence their cost-benefit calculations.

The minister’s bluster, though, was vastly outdone by his opposite number, Liam Byrne. “What on earth have they been doing for the past three years?” he asked, either oblivious or just plain ignorant of the hypocrisy of his question. (This is the man whose last act as a Treasury minister was to leave a crass note to his successor informing him that “there’s no money left”.)

On Labour’s watch, not only did the welfare budget spiral out of control, but it did so in such a way as to cultivate a deep-rooted sense of entitlement that is proving far more difficult to tackle than the coalition probably ever imagined.

Benefits ceased to be helping hands, instead being seen as a staple of household budgets.

This habit of taking the welfare state for granted grips not only those who benefit from it, but their sympathisers elsewhere in society and especially in the media. Any proposed cut to a handout that half of us never knew existed and which never did exist until the last government decided it was essential, is met by a public outcry with tabloids full of hard-luck stories about families plunged into poverty by Westminster pantomime villains.

It’s an appealing narrative, but the poverty is in being trapped in a livelihood that is dependent on the state, not in being weaned off it – no matter how abruptly.

Opponents say the welfare state is under attack from the actions being taken by the current government under the veil of austerity. But social security was intended to be a safety net, not a lifestyle choice. It is this manipulation of the values of the modern Labour Party’s forebears that presents the real danger to the institution’s integrity.

Squalor may have been one of Beveridge’s five ‘giant evils’, but idleness was another.

Make no mistake, there are many other reforms that are necessary but which politicians on all sides daren’t even contemplate for fear of the political consequences; such cowardice the Sage greets with disappointment but not surprise. If only Mr Duncan Smith would admit that what he has achieved is merely a scratching of the surface rather than the breakthrough he proclaims.

“This is not the big shake-up we need in the benefits system,” bemoaned Mr Byrne. He’s right, but he’s the last person entitled to say it.

Football and Politics Collide (Again)

Paolo di Canio has always been something of a controversial figure in English football – he once received an 11-game ban for clumsily pushing a referee to the ground after being sent off – but his appointment last weekend as the new manager of Premier League club Sunderland has intensified the heat to a whole new level… and not for the reasons that he would like.

As a football decision, the announcement has been met with general acceptance from fans and rivals alike, especially those who yearn for more ‘characters’ in English dugouts. But his arrival has also reignited the always fiery interaction between the sport and politics – di Canio is a self-proclaimed Fascist sympathiser.

The appointment immediately prompted the resignation of former foreign secretary David Miliband from his position as his local club’s vice-chairman, on the basis of the new manager’s “past political statements”, and the media circus that has followed during the past week has been embarrassing for a sport still reeling from recent racism scandals.

The controversy stems from di Canio’s unashamed use of the Roman salute (a gesture often used by Italian Fascists in the 20th century) towards a hardcore right-wing group of Lazio fans upon scoring goals, particularly against broadly left-wing clubs; he has also been outspoken in his support for the character and principles of Benito Mussolini.

And so this week began in a blaze of questions, epitomised by the farcical news conference (staged as part of the time-honoured ‘unveiling’ of a club’s manager), at which Sunderland’s press officer desperately tried to keep discussion on-topic while di Canio dismissed numerous requests from journalists to put the issue to bed by clarifying his views once and for all.

The next day, as the recriminations continued, he finally did so, but alas the hacks kept writing anyway.

But how much should be read into the impulsive, crowd-pleasing actions of a hot-headed individual in years past, especially one who has no interest in pursuing a political agenda and who was born a generation after the end of the Italian dictator’s reign? Could it be that he and his followers are incapable of appreciating the depth of feeling that his actions might stir?

The infamous push may have led to him moving clubs, but it didn’t stop him the FIFA Fair Play Award for an act of on-field sportsmanship just two years later. A succession of teams have seemingly had no qualms about rewarding his exceptional talent; whatever ‘baggage’ he brings, it’s the success he has in his career on which he shall be judged.

And how much should football really care about politics, anyway? When it comes to issues like discrimination and corruption – both of which have tainted the sport recently – there is a clear rationale for addressing those problems for the good of the game and its image in society.

But to begin challenging an individual’s political persuasions – however unpalatable – is to start down a slippery slope that leads to the game itself being defined in those terms. In a sport that already often pits bitter sectarian adversaries against each other, that would be extremely unwelcome. Few examples spring to mind of times when political interference has been anything but detrimental to the sport’s integrity.

So while sports writers have this past week once again been polishing their flawed moral compasses, the strongest and most dignified voice would surely have been the one that said ‘enough is enough’; it may at times be a powerful social force (for good and bad), but football is only a game, and we should just get on with it – ref-bashing included.

Osborne Prepares to Take the Heat

Hardly a Budget or Autumn Statement has gone by during the past two and a half years without George Osborne having to swallow hard and tell the nation about another downward adjustment of the prospects for Britain’s economy and its public finances, but when he stands up in the House of Commons on Wednesday, he may face his toughest challenge yet.

It has been a torrid time for the government – and the Treasury in particular – since the Chancellor’s last such address in December.

The surprise announcement that the UK slumped back into negative growth in the last three months of 2012 (rendering the Olympics-boosted third quarter as an outlier rather than a turning point) prompted more fierce criticism about the coalition’s fiscal strategy, despite continuing improvements in the labour market that have left even the most experienced economists puzzled.

Worse than that, last month Britain’s economic outlook was downgraded by one of the three main credit ratings agencies for the first time in 35 years. Although such agencies are seen as less influential than during the financial crisis, and even if the move was no real surprise given the disappointing growth figures, the decision appeared to undermine part of the fundamental rationale for austerity.

More recently, Westminster has witnessed a series of squabbles about more and less trivial issues, including whether press regulation should be instituted by new legislation or royal charter (as if anyone really knows or cares what the difference is), but mainly about planned changes to housing benefit that are designed to make a system that currently resembles a blank chequebook into one that is more efficient and cost-effective.

Most contentious is the so-called ‘bedroom tax’ – better thought of as the removal of a spare-room subsidy – which will mean council and social housing tenants will no longer be paid by the state to live in homes that are larger than they need while others exist in privately-rented squalor. (Apparently it’s the new policy that’s unfair, not the reality…)

The worrying aspect of it all is that, amidst the weekly micro-scandals, the country is losing sight of the bigger picture – what the coalition set out to achieve, how it intended to achieve it, and whether it is likely to be achieved by the time the electorate delivers its verdict.

The bad news is, it’s not looking good, and just how ‘not good’ will come into sharp focus when the red box is wielded; that’s why this week is likely to be particularly uncomfortable for the government, especially as it is likely to set the tone for Labour for many months to come.

The challenge for Ed Miliband and co, though, is not merely to exploit the government’s weaknesses – they have ample opportunity to do that – but to convince the electorate that they could do better. The election is only two years away, but it seems they still cannot shake off the reputation for economic mismanagement that deterred so many voters last time round.

The Conservatives’ persistent tendency to blame the troubles of the present on the failings of the past may be drawing ever more derision, but the polls suggest the mud still sticks. But just as Labour was held accountable for creating the mess, so the coalition will ultimately have to take the heat for its utter failure to sort it out – the temperature is rising fast, and it’s going to leave one man in particular sweating it out this week.

***

Whatever the particular economic circumstances, though, some things about Budget week never change – expect a series of conveniently-timed ‘leaks’; expect the government to get its excuses in early and the opposition to rehearse its response; expect the Chancellor to rush through a mind-boggling array of unhelpful figures in a matter of minutes, leaving pundits scrambling for hours to interpret them; expect headline-friendly gives and takes, helpfully illustrated by news-channel case studies; and above all, expect the devil to be in the detail.

The (Im)morality of Tax Avoidance 2

In the last post, the Sage lamented the limited power of governments over big business – unless they were globally united in purpose and action (and when did that ever happen?) – but also suggested a justification for tax avoidance, citing a company’s obligations to its shareholders.

Alongside those shareholders, couldn’t customers also be added to the list of those culpable for providing the incentives for corporations to act (and continue to act) in the way they do?

Take Amazon, for example – it may have received a fair amount of bad press recently, but if a book or DVD, say, were found to be substantially cheaper on its website than in a rival store, where would most people choose to make their purchase?

In most cases, until managers have a very good reason for implementing a policy that would have a negative impact on their bottom line, it would be irrational for them to do so. That reason may be legislative change – but large organisations don’t employ specialist legal and tax advisors for nothing; there will always be ways of getting around even the best-laid plans of politicians.

But if a company’s foot-soldiers – its customers – were to vote with their feet, sales would fall, profits would dwindle, investors would flee... and chairmen would have nightmares. The only problem is that – just like with world leaders – that kind of universal harmony is never going to happen either.

And it isn’t for the lack of trying. Remember the days when G8 summits had their headlines hijacked by anti-globalisation protestors filling the streets with their hatred and violence (donning T-shirts and gadgets made on the other side of the world, naturally)?

Remember the Occupy London camp that parked itself outside St Paul’s for a few months last winter, to show supposed unity between workers and the unemployed, from all backgrounds, against the evil corporate machine? You know, the one whose members interrupted their solemn meditation to do another day’s work on behalf of people they didn’t know, or to return to their warm, mortgaged home for the night?

Is it any wonder that the corporate behaviour that so many claim to revile continues so relentlessly when efforts to stand up to it have so often been undermined? And well they might be, because the actions of these outspoken critics are themselves purely rational.

Just as the boss of a listed company must uphold the interests of his business and his shareholders, the ordinary man on the street is bound by similar obligations to himself and his family. And, ultimately, if he had a clear opportunity to make himself and his dependants better off without breaking the law, he would surely choose – indeed, be obliged – to take it.

So perhaps the discussion should focus less on the morality of tax avoidance, which leads people to expect others to take actions based on their own subjective values, and be directed more towards finding ways of shifting the balance of incentives.

Gestures like empty diplomatic statements and fickle, forgotten protests make no impression whatsoever on this landscape, because those on the receiving end of them know that those making them have at least as much to lose from putting their money where their mouth is.

So the next time you’re sat in a Starbucks branch that you found on Google reading a Kindle book that you found by reading Facebook on your iPhone, ask yourself who’s really winning.

The (Im)morality of Tax Avoidance 1

The recent gathering of G20 bigwigs in Moscow, where representatives of the world’s richest nations declared war on multinational corporations over tax avoidance, did more to demonstrate finance ministers’ penchant for politics than their eye for economics.

For decades, politicians have turned a blind eye to the often wholly legal – but highly controversial – practices of large companies, and the industry of accountants that exists to assist them. During the boom years, the issue not only seemed less significant (politically as well as financially), but was even seen as a factor in the global economic success story – one of the fruits of globalisation.

How times have changed. Last weekend, George Osborne and Sir Mervyn King sat down with all of their major counterparts to discuss how to bring this juggernaut shuddering to a halt. Besides another apparently meaningless communiqué, all that emerged was a realisation of the scale of the challenge.

This was, nevertheless, an important first step. By definition, the accounting practices of businesses that transcend borders cannot be governed by one or even a handful of governments acting in isolation; it requires concerted, co-ordinated action.

Indeed, the G20 summit merely reaffirmed the action plan already being devised by the OECD, another rich-country club. This plan will bring together ongoing investigations, for example into how companies are minimising their tax base, and how and where e-commerce activities should be registered.

The third focus of the OECD’s attention is transfer pricing, whereby companies divert profits to subsidiaries registered in tax havens. Such payments have become increasingly common (at a staggering rate), with Amazon, Google and Starbucks among the most high-profile cases of companies picking and choosing their tax rates in this way.

Tackling this is undoubtedly the political world’s biggest challenge. Not only is it the most difficult to legislate against, it is also where the stakes are highest and the headlines are biggest.

After all, if Amazon says the money from its UK customers is paid into a bank in Luxembourg, and if Starbucks says its British-based shops are using goods purchased and processed in Switzerland as well as intellectual property honed and owned elsewhere, who can argue?

Governments, even when acting together, can only do so much; investors, on the other hand, can hit a corporation where it hurts. How can a listed company tell the stock market in one of its major areas of business that it is profitable and thriving, whilst telling the tax man in the same jurisdiction that it has nothing left over to give?

The justification comes down to legislative requirements. If it is legal (however ‘immoral’) to take certain actions to reduce your company’s exposure to tax, boosting your overall profits and the dividends paid to shareholders, do you not have a ‘moral’ duty to those shareholders to take those actions – trumping any obligation towards your tax-paying customers?

Until governments large and small come together and devise a legal and financial framework that not only legislates but also operates across borders, the world will continue on its merry, globalising way, and those firms in a position to exploit the trend will continue to do so.

International authorities have a hard enough time as it is when it comes to writing a global accountancy rule book (not least because of classic American aloofness); raising the stakes and challenging vested interests is not high on the priority list.

So if you can’t beat them…

High-Speed Rail - Cart Before the Horse?

After a series of failed court appeals by a local campaign group, the proposed Aberdeen city bypass finally got the go-ahead in October last year. The new transport link will cost hundreds of millions – and almost certainly more than original estimates, because of delays caused by the long judicial process – and will not be completed for years to come.

The local authority has since announced that the new project will take priority, so that no major investment will be made in the existing network until after it is completed – ironic, given that a key purpose of the new link is to relieve the pressure on the current, outdated infrastructure.

Sound familiar?

The latest chapter in the story of High Speed 2 was written this week with the announcement of the proposed route of the project’s second phase between Birmingham and Manchester/Leeds – cue the re-opening of the national debate about just what it is for, who it will benefit, and what it will cost.

Despite being a clearly divisive issue, high-speed rail is also one of those rare subjects on which all three major political parties basically agree with each other. It was Labour who initiated the process in 2009, with the coalition government making only minor modifications to the strategic plans they inherited.

Opinion in the country seems to be much less united, with influential pressure groups such as the Taxpayers’ Alliance expressing major concerns not only about the project’s affordability per se, but whether it is a justifiable use of billions of pounds of public money, committed to at a time of recession and austerity.

Even putting that aside, the economic case for the line is far from compelling. If the purpose is to attract greater inward investment into the UK, the fact that the project’s completion may be nearly two decades away makes the scale of that investment almost impossible to quantify, let alone guarantee.

If it’s about linking north and south to better distribute the proceeds of growth, making London more accessible from the likes of Manchester and Leeds may send a mixed message. If the aim is to reduce demand for short-haul flights by providing a more viable alternative to aviation, arguably the money would be better spent improving Britain’s existing, ageing railways.

If it’s about enabling political and business leaders to wear a badge of honour already boasted by most of Britain’s economic rivals… well then it becomes clearer why these sorts are so eager to proceed, and why the public are so suspicious.

In an era when booming internet connectivity means doing business remotely is easier and more popular than ever, why is it so essential that travelling by rail between Britain’s hubs takes a little bit less time than it does currently?

To use the new line, people will still have to travel (via road or Victorian railway) to one of the big cities, squeezing the efficiency gains to be made, so why not invest in making the public transport options available to people on their doorstep more appealing – costing less money, and delivering much quicker results?

Britain has a poor recent record of major infrastructure projects, even during the boom years, and there is nothing to suggest this latest vanity project will be any different. That is not to say the Sage is against capital investment – quite the opposite; politicians with a long-term view of what is best for their country rather than a preoccupation with forthcoming elections are an all too rare species.

But the benefits of a scheme have to be in proportion to the costs, and be enjoyed by a sufficiently large section of the population whose taxes are funding it. High-speed rail, in its current incarnation and its current context, surely fails that test.

A Snapshot of a Changing High Street?

This afternoon, more than 1300 people were pitched into unemployment when all 187 branches of camera retailer Jessops closed for the last time. The devastating blow comes just two days after the firm went into administration, but follows a string of high-street casualties last year.

Some blame the lasting effects of Britain’s recession, others the economic turmoil in Europe. But might the trend have more to do with the long-term changes in the way we shop?

Clinton Cards, JJB Sports, Comet – these were just the most recent cases of major high-street firms running into financial difficulties in 2012. In most cases, the businesses were sold to investment firms at nominal prices, and many of the stores remained open, at least in the short term. However, the message was clear – retail is changing.

Whether it’s increasingly competitive markets, the encroachment of the big supermarkets, or – as in almost all cases – the growth of online shopping, the way we buy non-essential goods is not how it used to be, and the challenge for retailers has been to adapt to this changing society whilst retaining their identity and distinctive presence in our lives.

Whilst some have thrived in this 21^st-century marketplace, others have failed to keep pace.

Take Jessops. If you want to buy a camera, you might go to an electrical store or specialist photography outlet to get some expert advice, or a large supermarket to get a feel for which are the most popular and most affordable brands; you might then go home and look for the same items on a handful of online retailers where you’d be most likely to get the best deal.

The internet giant gets your money, the supermarkets go on selling food by the truckload and the electrical store is happy enough selling high-margin white goods. The specialist retailer – whilst appealing to the purist, maybe – has nothing to fall back on and nowhere else to go.

The fate of JJB Sports, meanwhile, was sealed by its inability (or unwillingness) to compete directly either with its sports fashion rival JD or the budget chain Sports Direct; Comet was beaten by (Amazon aside) the superior service offered by its high-street twin, Currys, while Clintons lost nearly half of its stores as new online rivals enticed customers with unique services such as personalisation, at no cost for delivery.

The effect, as you walk down the high street of almost any city in the country, is stark – especially when you factor in the sprawling out-of-town hubs offering stress-free, weather-proof shopping with entertainment and dining, not to mention comprehensive transport links and/or free parking.

Units that once accommodated household names now stand empty or are occupied by banks, phone shops, or (increasingly) bargain-basement stores appealing to the lowest common denominator, selling imported or cost-price goods in volume to customers who didn’t even know they needed them.

In other words, the range of stores that appeal to the casual shopper – and where there is still a bang for the buck spent on occupying those locations, employing people to staff them and paying the bills to heat and light them – is shrinking, and with it the scale of the traditional retail marketplace is declining.

Jessops had an online as well as a high-street presence, but its prices could not compete with dedicated internet retailers and its marketing budget barely registered against the electrical superstores, so once administration commenced – destroying any shreds of customer appeal that remained – suppliers and investors fled. In this dog-eat-dog world, it got devoured.

Is all of this a good thing? It depends on your point of view. If you know what you want and you crave choice, ease and affordability then the new world of shopping is for you; if, like the Sage, you pine for the good old days of high streets buzzing with people of all ages surveying the wares and sampling the services of shopkeepers, then your time has been and gone.

If you used to work in Jessops, all that matters is finding the next job.

Guns in America - Whose Right?

Like Columbine and Virginia Tech before it, last week’s appalling massacre at an educational establishment in America has sparked nationwide soul-searching and another difficult debate about the role of guns in society. But for all the usual talk, will the outcome be any different?

The stimulus for action this time certainly feels different. It is not to diminish the tragedy of previous events to say that the premeditated murder of a score of elementary-school pupils (many of them as they fled) and 6 of their teachers while they shielded their pupils is an outrage of an order not seen in the US for generations.

A quiet young man, possibly suffering from Asperger’s, with no history of being trouble with the authorities, wakes up one Friday morning and shoots his mother several times in the head before taking her own legally-acquired arsenal of assault weapons to the local school – his alma mater – to write another chapter in the grim history of American mass murder.

Since no amount of regulation of gun ownership under existing rules could reasonably have prevented this series of events, attention has turned to whether tighter restrictions should be introduced (or re-introduced) on what weapons individuals can buy and own.

The stumbling block for any such legislation, though, is considerable – the Second Amendment to the United States Constitution. This amendment enshrines the right of all citizens to keep and bear arms, and has prevailed or even been strengthened every time it has been challenged in the Supreme Court.

But the US has introduced restrictions on gun ownership in the past; the Gun Control Act passed in 1968 in response to the assassination of Senator Robert Kennedy banned the sale of firearms to certain groups including criminals and children, and as recently as 1994, a federal law was passed banning the acquisition of assault weapons, but it expired after ten years in which its many loopholes had been criticised and exploited.

President Obama – reduced to tears as he followed both of his predecessors in witnessing such an outrage occur on his watch – has pledged his support for the reintroduction of a ban on assault weapons as well as the closing of loopholes in restrictions on the sale of ammunition (the gunman had dozens more rounds available to him and may well have used them had his potential victims and emergency services not responded so quickly).

However, we have been here before, and the Constitution – together with the vested interests that exploit it for their own security – means any reform will be gradual in its implementation, limited in its scope and (on the other side of the fiscal cliff) probably insufficient in its funding.

On this side of the Atlantic, inevitable parallels have been drawn between America’s timidity and the prompt response of the British government to the Dunblane massacre, introducing a ban on handguns that has apparently prevented any repeat (notwithstanding the Cumbria shootings two years ago).

But the two scenarios are very different. The events of that day in 1996 – like Hungerford before it – were a wake-up call to a nation that believed that such events belonged elsewhere. Repeated rows since about the limits of reasonable self-defence of one’s own person and property reflect a culture of restraint, in stark contrast to the American sense of duty to protect oneself and one’s family by whatever means necessary.

For a President already facing a festive period of bitter disputes and hard bargaining, this very unwanted distraction – and no less intractable dilemma – could not have come at a worse time.

Leveson: Was It Worth It?

It may have been the most eagerly anticipated public inquiry report since Hutton beheaded the BBC, but in the end the publication of Lord Justice Leveson’s verdict on the state of the British press – and what to do about it – brought few surprises and little certainty about what happens next. But you wouldn’t have thought it, judging by the response from those in the crossfire.

Almost every major British newspaper today united in rejection, even condemnation, of Lord Leveson’s conviction that creating a structure that can be relied upon to deliver firm and fair regulation of the print media industry requires legislation that initiates and underpins it.

Only the Guardian – the paper that did most to expose the appalling culture and practices at the News of the World, revelations that marked the issue’s arrival on the front pages – broke ranks, declaring that “the press should treat [the report] with respect and… humility”.

This aside, the broad support of newspapers across the political and ownership spectrum will – worryingly – give the Prime Minister great confidence in adopting a position that is in fact verging on a betrayal of those whose side he appeared to be on when he commissioned the inquiry and pledged to honour its recommendations.

Leveson may – at David Cameron’s behest – have spent several months overseeing countless interviews with interested parties from all sides of the debate and writing a 2,000-page report, but it seems the Conservative leader had already made his own mind up about what was an acceptable course of action when it comes to keeping tabs on the press.

True, the judge’s vision of a regulatory body independent of Parliament yet established by it is somewhat confused, and he can have no-one to blame but himself for how little heed has been paid to his assertion that this “is not and cannot be characterised as” state regulation.

But the exaggerations and caricatures of where this supposed precedent could lead are frankly ridiculous, and advocated out of nothing more than self-interest and desperation among editors who fear the removal of more of the power and influence they wield, in addition to the dilution already being delivered by dwindling circulation.

The last several years has shown only too starkly the extent to which newspaper owners cannot be trusted to govern themselves in a meaningful, accountable way. Previous watchdogs have been consistently and systematically deconstructed and undermined to a point where the public can have no faith in the industry’s ability to retain its essential integrity.

Something has to change, and if it takes Parliament to lay down the law about how any such body should be structured, constituted and operated – as Leveson has argued – so be it.

Having said that, there is one major area that Leveson has utterly failed to address in his report, much to the disappointment of the Sage; it is the role of the unregulated internet, in particular social media.

Although he acknowledges that sites like Twitter may display “information that would not be able to be published by a newspaper in conformity with… self-regulation”, he utterly fails to address the extent to which this renders any constraints on print media futile; Lord McAlpine, among others, would testify to that.

In an historic moment yesterday, the Prime Minister and Deputy Prime Minister demonstrated, at the despatch box, their very different views on how Lord Justice Leveson’s findings should be followed up; it emerged last night that steps are being taken in Whitehall to draw up a draft bill, but this seems more likely to be an exercise in spitefulness – demonstrating the practical challenges in legislating for the ungovernable – than the dutiful following of one man’s orders.

Leveson has staked his position; the papers are ranged against him, and the politicians have each shown their hand. After all the fuss, the arguments will rage on and on.