Financial and business news and articles
Letters: What about women?
I’m heartened that Labour’s election strategy will target “middle-class mainstream mums”, although I hope they extend this to all women (Report, 11 March). Fawcett polling shows that 49% of women don’t think politicians are considering their view on key issues such as the economy, though they are more likely to vote for a party with a women’s equality plan. But tackling women’s equality is still too often seen as a fringe issue, even while the gender gap in voting intention is likely to be key to the election result. On the big issues like the economy and crime, policies can have a significantly different impact on women. If there are to be drastic cuts to the public sector, women are more likely to lose their jobs, as they make up 65% of the workforce and also make greater use of public services. This is why we’ve launched our What About Women? campaign, calling on politicians to explain what their policies would mean for women.
Ceri Goddard
Chief executive, Fawcett Society
guardian.co.uk © Guardian News & Media Limited 2010 | Use of this content is subject to our Terms & Conditions | More Feeds
Related articles
No comments yet.
Why I’ve gone from porn to politics | Anna Arrowsmith
about 4 months ago - No comments
I started making pornography for women because there was a need. And now I want to do something about the need for more female MPs
I’m Anna Arrowsmith, the Liberal Democrat PPC for Gravesend or, as many will know me, Anna Span, the UK’s first female porn director. Take your pick.
Since news of my selection broke on Thursday, many people have asked me why I want to be an MP. The answer is: for exactly the same reason I decided to start making pornography for women more than 12 years ago. Someone had to do it and it didn’t look like anyone else was going to – at least not with the drive, enthusiasm and determination that I could offer. The unfortunate truth is that there are far too few female MPs in this country compared to the rest of the world.
Did you know that Rwanda has the highest number of female MPs of all countries at 53%? Imagine living in a country with a female majority! Well, here I am again thinking that another male-dominated field needs challenging.
Back in 1998 I was in the final year of my degree, studying film at Central St Martin’s College of Art & Design. I had decided to write my dissertation on what fundamental changes would need to be made to mainstream pornography in order for it to be enjoyed by women. I called it Towards a New Pornography, intending it to sound like a manifesto, more for my own amusement than anything else. Then came lesson one in the British psyche. Even the so-called experimental filmmaker lecturers at this outstanding college were actually conservative with a small ‘c’.
My adverts for performers to appear in my graduation film were defaced and torn down by members of staff and my final film was refused a public airing “for fear of upsetting people’s grandparents”, according to the head of the department. All this for a film where the sex was actually simulated due to lead actor issues.
Twelve years later I have won many awards, including Indie Porn Pioneer at the international Feminist Porn Awards in Toronto and best director for two years in the UK.
I have fought long and hard for women’s right to sexual expression and consumption, as well as for freedom of speech. I have long since felt vindicated about my choices back at college and know my pro-sex feminist argument is based on sound principles and logic.
So why don’t I stay in my industry and continue to reap the rewards of my efforts? Because I am the type of person who needs a challenge. I achieved much in my last career and now I want to broaden my campaign to other pressing issues such as why this or previous governments don’t think they have a responsibility to give young people something productive and engaging to do with their spare time. I lived on a council estate in Bermondsey and saw first hand why the kids were taking drugs, fighting and committing crimes.
They are simply bored. I want to campaign to give young people in Gravesham the help they deserve.
To do this I have to fight yet another old man’s club – only this time without the dirty raincoats. Some won’t like it; they’ll assume that my selection means the world is going to hell. I’ve been here before; last time I changed my industry for ever.
That, among other issues, is why I am making the transition from porn to Parliament.
Watch this space; I’ve got a lot of – for want of a better word – balls.
guardian.co.uk © Guardian News & Media Limited 2010 | Use of this content is subject to our Terms & Conditions | More Feeds
More money makes society miserable, warns report
about 4 months ago - No comments
Economics experts argue that Britain’s thirst for status symbols harms our well-being
The national belt-tightening expected to follow next month’s budget could prove to be of more benefit to the nation’s sense of well-being than if wealth levels were to soar, according to a new study.
Complex economic formulas developed by two professors of economics, Curtis Eaton and Mukesh Eswaran, and published in the current edition of the Economic Journal, suggest that greater affluence can seriously damage a nation’s health. Based on their mathematical modelling, the economists advance the theory that once a country reaches a reasonable standard of living there is little further benefit to be had from increasing the wealth of its population. Indeed, it could make people feel worse off.
They believe their work shows that, as a nation becomes wealthier, consumption shifts increasingly to buying status symbols with no intrinsic value – such as lavish jewellery, designer clothes and luxury cars. But they warn: “These goods represent a ‘zero-sum game’ for society: they satisfy the owners, making them appear wealthy, but everyone else is left feeling worse off.”
Their work owes much to the economist Thorstein Veblen, who in 1899 coined the term “conspicuous consumption” in his book The Theory of the Leisure Class. Veblen argued that people seek status through conspicuous consumption, which derives its value not from the intrinsic worth of what is consumed but from the fact that it permits people to attempt to set themselves apart from others. As the economy grows, people increasingly choose status symbols or “Veblen goods” over other goods.
“Those with above-average wealth consume Veblen goods with a positive impact on their happiness,” the authors write. “But those with below-average wealth simply cannot afford these goods, so they have a negative impact on their happiness. This is known as ‘Veblen competition’. As average wealth rises, people grow richer but not happier.”
The pair believe their research helps to explain why empirical studies show that levels of happiness and feelings of community in affluent countries have stagnated, despite growth in real incomes.
There is another downside. As people yearn for more status symbols they have less time or inclination for helping others. This, the authors argue, damages “community and trust”, which are vital to an economy because they ensure the smooth running of society. They conclude: “Conspicuous consumption can have an impact not only on people’s well-being but also on the growth prospects of the economy.” The theory may go some way to explaining the public backlash against the louche lifestyles of the UK’s footballers, bankers and politicians.
It fits into a debate within economics about how to measure a nation’s true wealth. Many economists believe they need to focus more on measuring happiness. The belief that a focus on individual wealth creation can be divisive has spread around the worlds of politics, psychology and science. Clinical psychologist Oliver James has argued that there is an epidemic of “affluenza” throughout the developed world, with attempts “to keep up with the Joneses” triggering huge increases in depression and anxiety.
Last year a bestselling book by two epidemiologists, Richard Wilkinson and Kate Pickett, called The Spirit Level: Why More Equal Societies Almost Always Do Better, suggested that Britain and America were the countries with the widest gulfs between rich and poor in the developed world, and as a result had the most health and social problems.
Nevertheless, Eaton and Eswaran, from the universities of Calgary and British Columbia respectively, do not believe the developed world’s obsession with wealth shows any signs of abating. The pair predict that “it is likely that conspicuous consumption will become worse as time progresses”.
guardian.co.uk © Guardian News & Media Limited 2010 | Use of this content is subject to our Terms & Conditions | More Feeds
Mariella Frostrup has lunch with Alastair Campbell
about 4 months ago - No comments
Alastair Campbell discusses Twitter, Iraq and his Andrew Marr TV interview over lunch with Mariella Frostrup
As we’re perusing the bistro-style menu of the Camden Brasserie, I ask Alastair Campbell if he cares about food. His answer is not the most promising kick-off for an OFM interview.
“I’m not a big food person. I would be one of those people if you could take food pills and that’s where you got your energy for the day, that would be fine.”
His cooking skills are equally underwhelming. “I cooked a soufflé in 1980,” he offers.
Successfully?
“Really good. Tuna and potato – I gave up after that.”
Discouraging perhaps but not completely unexpected. Tony Blair’s one-time communications director, now novelist, Labour policy adviser, after-dinner speaker and general man-about-the-media has never come across as the sensory sort. Familiarity, not haute cuisine, is the main credential for Campbell’s restaurant choice, along with “the best chips in the world”.
Despite the Camden Brasserie’s relocation to an incongruous, glass-fronted block and internal makeover with charcoal grey walls, burgundy tongue-and-groove and an entire back wall papered to look like crammed bookshelves, the menu is virtually unchanged since it opened in 1983. When I arrive punctually at 12.30 my lunch date is already occupying his usual table in the right-hand corner, mobile phone and BlackBerry slung on the table like a discarded gun belt. “I’ve been coming here so long,” Campbell tells me, “that when I was on the Mirror, Mike Molloy, the editor, and I, used to design the front pages on the paper tablecloths.”
He asks about and then requests the special – tomato and vegetable soup, followed by calf’s liver – declaring that he likes to be told what to order. “I never looked at the menu, I don’t even know what’s on it.”
Such eschewing of responsibility could be regarded as a running theme. He recently said that far from setting the agenda at Downing Street, he was merely doing his duty. “I don’t think I had any power that was not Tony Blair’s power,” he says. And during lunch it becomes clear that his long-time partner Fiona Millar performs a similar role in personal matters. Having foresworn alcohol since 1986, he admits he has been experimenting with the odd glass since last year’s French holiday. “Always in controlled circumstances. As we call Fiona,” he jokes. “In her book about working women she devoted what seemed to be a whole chapter to how useless I am.”
Is there a hint of pride in that statement? I ask how he squares his risible contribution to domestic chores with the equality he espouses in his politics. “How do I rationalise it…? I’m the main breadwinner?” He raises his eyebrow hopefully but sees I’m not impressed. He answers for me, shaking his head ruefully: “No, that’s no good.”
Despite the war of attrition, recognisable to most of us in long-term partnerships, that rages in the Campbell/Millar household, from the radio settings (“First argument of the day – Fiona switches on the Today Programme, I switch it off”) to his domestic inadequacies, the couple have weathered three decades and raised three near-grown children, Calum, Rory and Grace. I ask how it feels to have stayed the course.
“She did an interview once where she said something like: ‘On balance, I’m pleased that we stayed together.’ I said, ‘what does that mean, “on balance”?’ But that’s the truth, isn’t it? On balance. I’m glad we stayed together, too. Though she sometimes makes it sound like she’s living with North Korea or something.”
Examples of Campbell’s loyalty and aversion to change, arguably illustrated by his restaurant choice as well as his relationship, are available in all areas of his life. Whether it’s with his ex-boss, whose defence he still springs to like a tiger, to the Labour party or to his beloved Burnley football team, Campbell strikes me as more of a loyal alsatian than the rottweiler of media mythology. The invincible public image is one he finds unrecognisable, an irony, I point out, when his area of expertise is communication.
“Look, you know this thing recently about Gordon and all that… I think you could go and interview every single person who’s worked for me and I’d be surprised if they’d say I was a bully. I think they’d say that I was actually quite pleasant to work for. I’m quite a good team builder and I always saw that as an important part of the job.”
Is he saying that in contrast to the PM? He immediately points out that Gordon Brown would be the first to admit he struggles with his handling of his media image. Those looking for a similar chink in Alastair Campbell’s armadillo-like exterior would have found some satisfaction during his recent appearance on Andrew Marr’s Sunday morning show. Campbell visibly froze and appeared on the verge of tears during post-Chilcot questions on Iraq.
“I don’t think I was that upset. I almost wasn’t listening. I was just thinking: ‘This guy asking these questions doesn’t give a shit about the answers.’ It was just a moment of exasperation and I thought, ‘bollocks to it’. And I was thinking about saying certain things that I would have regretted. So I just said to myself, ’shut up, don’t lash out, don’t get angry.’ There came a point where I was conscious of Andrew speaking but I was sort of in my own zone. I remember this really important thought flitted into my head. I thought: ‘Oh God, I wonder if my mum’s watching?’ Because she’d be upset.”
We’ve been so engrossed we’ve dispensed with two courses. He motored though his soup and now the calf’s liver is gone too. Over coffee, (he’s a cappuccino, I’m a macchiato) we move on to the upcoming general election where he feels that social networking sites will be a major asset.
It partly explains his enthusiastic embrace, of all things Twitter, blog and Facebook. As we’ve been talking his right hand has been creeping ever closer to his mobile, abandoned near the sugar bowl during the rest of the meal. Suddenly, Gollum-like, he can resist temptation no longer. He snatches it up: “Can I tweet about you? Can I say ‘having lunch with Mariella Frostrup’?”
He doesn’t wait for an answer but starts typing away into his phone.
“Oh my God yes. Frostrup…. I’ll put ‘Lots of envious glances from male-only table opposite’.”
“That’s pathetic,” I retort, “that’s trying to enforce an idea on people.”
“But ‘Having lunch with Mariella Frostrup’ is just old-fashioned name dropping.” He sounds disappointed.
“And yours is what? Name-dropping with smugness?”
“Yes.”
I’d fully intended to avoid politics but in the end I can’t resist. During a brief spat about Iraq, the waitress begins clearing our cups. “Could you clear this woman away too please?” he requests, only partly in jest.
To be quite honest I’m thoroughly enjoying myself. Campbell is engaging, funny and informed. I’m almost tempted to take up his invitation to Ladies’ Day at Burnley Football Club the next day. “The Burnley communications director phoned me yesterday – I’ve done the past two Ladies’ Days – and said, ‘I’m really sorry but they want you again.’” I don’t like to point out that with such short notice he’s most likely a stand-in!
Like I said earlier, a little affection goes a long way with Alastair Campbell. If I were prime minister I’d like to have him padding alongside me too, barking at people who got on my nerves. I’d put him on a leash though, just to be safe.
Alastair Campbell’s novel, Maya, is out now, published by Hutchinson
guardian.co.uk © Guardian News & Media Limited 2010 | Use of this content is subject to our Terms & Conditions | More Feeds
Brown draws flak over role in handling military budget
about 4 months ago - No comments
Cameron uses prime minister’s questions to challenge Brown over military funding claims made to the Chilcot inquiry
It was possibly the most supercharged prime minister’s questions of the year so far. At 12:09pm last Wednesday the ritual jousting turned toxic as David Cameron challenged Gordon Brown’s testimony at the Iraq inquiry days earlier.
Brown had told the Chilcot inquiry that he never refused urgent requests for more military funding. Cameron did not believe him, citing two former chiefs of the defence staff who had criticised the prime minister for offering the inquiry evidence that was “disingenuous” and “dissembling”.
Several Labour backbenchers could not hold their tongues. But, they roared, Lord Guthrie and Admiral Lord Boyce were “Tories”. The implication was damning; these men might once have been characters of honour whose duty was to serve the nation but now their criticism could be dismissed as readily as, well, Cameron’s.
It was a poisonous putdown. In their view, the opinions of two of the most powerful figures in modern military history had become corrupted to the extent they were no longer impartial.
Some blamed Sir Richard Dannatt, the former army chief, for politicising the military. After all, Dannatt’s consistent criticism of defence spending in Afghanistan had preceded reports that he would become a defence adviser to the Conservatives. Beyond the hullabaloo over political bias weighed against genuine concern over soldiers’ welfare, the debate boils down to whether Guthrie and Co have a point? Did Brown starve the military of funding when he was chancellor, leaving the forces short of vital equipment?
The answer may depend on whose side you are on. Guthrie and Boyd remain adamant that Brown mishandled the defence budget when chancellor and that his prudence meant, for instance, fewer troop-carrying helicopters in Afghanistan, one of the most vexing issues facing commanders in Helmand province. Their critique was bolstered by an inquest verdict hours before Wednesday’s Commons exchange. Four soldiers were unlawfully killed after troops were given “inadequate” training, according to Wiltshire coroner David Masters.
Brown, too, remains unmoved. He told Cameron that “every request” made by defence officials for “urgent operational requirements” was met. In fact, said the prime minister, £18bn had been invested in Afghanistan and Iraq on top of the military budget. In real terms, spending was up. The Tories, claimed the prime minister, cut it by 30% in the 1990s. But the truth, as so often, is somewhere in between.
Analysts point out that the MoD has a long-term core budget while the additional cost of fighting wars comes from the Treasury reserve. Many believe this dynamic fuelled disagreement between Brown and the military men.
However, the future for defence spending appears less ambiguous. Swingeing cuts are a certainty. Days before last week’s PMQ, the defence select committee bemoaned a £21bn funding gap for scheduled military projects. If they win the election, the Tories will have to preside over huge cuts in military spending. The question is, will Guthrie and Boyd sit quietly on the sidelines when that happens?
guardian.co.uk © Guardian News & Media Limited 2010 | Use of this content is subject to our Terms & Conditions | More Feeds
Conservative defector condemns party’s ‘vile letter’ and hostility towards Europe
about 4 months ago - No comments
MEP Edward McMillan-Scott accuses Tories of euro-scepticism and ‘double standards’ for expelling him while only suspending Lord Archer
The former leader of the Tories in Europe launches a scathing attack on David Cameron’s Conservatives today, accusing them of “visceral euroscepticism”, “twisted” thinking and bullying tactics that forced him out of the party.
Edward McMillan-Scott, who defected to the Liberal Democrats on Friday, has also accused the Tories of “extraordinary double standards” for expelling him permanently, having only suspended Lord Archer, who was sentenced to four years in prison for perjury in 2001.
Writing in today’s Observer, McMillan-Scott, who remains a vice-president of the European parliament, says the Tories unleashed a “campaign of vilification” against him after he claimed that Michal Kaminski, the Polish MEP who now leads their centre-right group in the EU, had an antisemitic, homophobic and racist track record.
A strong pro-European and member of the Tory party for 43 years, McMillan-Scott gives voice to years of frustration at the party’s hostile attitudes to the EU under present and past leaders, including William Hague.
In his outspoken attack on the party over its handling of his expulsion, McMillan-Scott says he has been smeared by Tory press officers who have tried to claim he is the one who holds antisemitic views.
He adds that they have distorted facts about his defection and claims that the party produced no documents to support its case when he appealed against expulsion. “I am not bitter, but they are twisted. It is not a nice party now,” he writes.
He accuses Cameron of tolerating eurosceptics who depart from the party line while persecuting him, a pro-European, for daring to express sincerely held doubts about the leadership credentials of a controversial fellow MEP.
“David Cameron shields his europhobes,” he writes. “No murmur was made when last weekend Lord Tebbit in effect encouraged Conservatives to vote Ukip in the general election against the Speaker, John Bercow. The dog whistle is really at a lower pitch: that Ukip supporters know that there is a real home for them, back in the Conservative party.”
Last night, speaking from the Liberal Democrat spring conference in Birmingham, McMillan-Scott said the party had shown “massive double standards” by expelling him while suspending Jeffrey Archer for five years.
When the Liberal Democrat leader, Nick Clegg, mentioned McMillan-Scott’s name at a rally on Friday night there was a huge roar from activists. Yesterday he was seated in the front row for a question-and-answer session, so Clegg could welcome him.
The row over McMillan-Scott blew up last year when he stood as vice-president of the European parliament against Kaminski, who was Hague’s choice. Following McMillan-Scott’s stand, Timothy Kirkhope, leader of the Conservative MEPs, withdrew the party whip.
On 15 September, without any prior notification, McMillan-Scott was expelled from the Conservative party after 25 years as an MEP, four years as leader of the MEPs and three years on the party’s board.
• Hague is also likely to come under fire if he declines an invitation to appear this Thursday before a parliamentary committee investigating the granting of a peerage to Lord Ashcroft .
The three Tory members of the public administration committee – David Burrowes, Ian Liddell-Grainger and Charles Walker – have already said that they will not attend the one-off meeting, at which confidential Cabinet Office records relating to the decision to grant Ashcroft a peerage in 2000 will be discussed.
But the event is now in danger of running into farce. Ashcroft, a “non-dom” who does not pay UK tax on his overseas earnings, is unlikely to appear in person and Hague, too, looks doubtful.
guardian.co.uk © Guardian News & Media Limited 2010 | Use of this content is subject to our Terms & Conditions | More Feeds
Recovery yields Alistair Darling a £12bn budget windfall
about 4 months ago - No comments
Chancellor will cite state investment in jobs as key to lower-than-expected unemployment
Alistair Darling will claim next week that government action to protect jobs has saved around £12bn, as Labour uses the pre-election budget to spell out key economic dividing lines with the Tories.
In what is expected to be the most political budget in decades, the chancellor will cite government investment in jobs programmes as a major reason why unemployment has turned out to be dramatically lower than economists predicted. Last year’s budget anticipated that the level of unemployment, based on National Audit Office assessments of independent forecasts, would be 2.09 million people in the fourth quarter of 2009 and 2.44 million in the fourth quarter of 2010. By December’s pre-budget report (PBR), however, the government had revised the forecasts to 1.72 million for 2009 and 1.91 million for 2010, saying that this would save up to £10bn over five years from lower unemployment benefits alone.
Since then, the Observer has established that Darling’s officials have cut the forecasts still further. The latest projections for unemployment are for it to hit 1.72 million in the final quarter of this year and 1.75 million in the fourth quarter of 2011 – a further 200,000 lower than in the PBR plans, potentially freeing up an extra £1bn-£2bn.
The work and pensions secretary, Yvette Cooper, said: “In the 80s and 90s unemployment continued to rise even after the recession ended, because the government failed to put the necessary support and training in place and keep it there as the economy returned to growth.” She claimed that the Conservatives would cut back investment in jobs programmes and “put the economy at risk, even though the clear evidence shows helping people back to work saves money for the future too”.
This week Cooper is expected to announce that the government will subsidise another 7,000 jobs for young people, bringing the total created under the Future Jobs Fund to 117,000. The funding will pay for work at the national minimum wage, targeted at under-25s and people living in unemployment hotspots.
Last night Treasury sources insisted that most of the windfall savings from lower-than-expected unemployment would be used to cut the deficit, rather than for pre-election giveaways.
Darling believes the budget could spark a sell-off in government markets unless he stands by his pledge to halve the deficit within four years. Ministers believe that they have a credible plan to put the public finances back in order, through targeted investment in the economy, which they say will speed progress towards sustained growth; the introduction of tax rises such as the 50p rate for top earners (from this April) and national insurance rises from next April; and efficiency savings across government. But Darling is not expected to spell out any more details of specific departmental spending cuts so close to polling day.
guardian.co.uk © Guardian News & Media Limited 2010 | Use of this content is subject to our Terms & Conditions | More Feeds
Can Katy Perry stop EMI going to America for a song?
about 4 months ago - No comments
Billions of pounds of debt, the internet and piracy are crippling one of Britain’s most iconic firms
It is a tale of sex, debt and rock’n'roll that is unlikely to have a happy ending. When Guy Hands, a City financier with a penchant for fast food and an insatiable appetite for deal-making, came up with a plan to buy EMI, Britain’s flagship music company, using billions of pounds of borrowed money, many wondered how he could possibly make a decent return on his investment. As it has turned out, he couldn’t.
This weekend EMI’s new chairman Charles Allen, the former ITV chief executive hired by Hands last week to run the music arm of the company, is battling to ensure its independence, assembling a rescue plan for the company that signed the Beatles and became synonymous with the golden age of British pop.
Sources close to the company say Allen, a former accountant whose eclectic musical tastes encompass Lily Allen and Edith Piaf, is “rolling up his sleeves” and working to ensure the company does not breach the terms of its bank loans, but there is no doubt EMI is in peril. “It is a very, very big moment,” according to Claire Enders, founder of media consultancy Enders Analysis. “The next two or three months are critical for the future of EMI.”
Allen’s predecessor, Elio Leoni-Sceti, left suddenly last week just as the final touches were being put on a rescue package, prompting fears over the company’s future. The business is effectively being propped up by its past, surviving on the revenues generated by artists signed during a 30-year period when British music dominated the world.
The list of talent on EMI’s books reads like a roll call of rock royalty: David Bowie, Queen, Lennon and McCartney, the Sex Pistols and Pink Floyd. As an incubator of home-grown musical talent, the company is without equal and its position as one of the “big four” global record labels is a source of national pride; it exists to make money but EMI also safeguards the country’s status as a place where music that matters is made.
If EMI disappears or falls into foreign hands, many music industry figures worry that future generations of British acts may find it more difficult to find a worldwide audience. Jazz Summers, who manages former Verve vocalist Richard Ashcroft, who is signed to EMI, said: “If you look at their track record, they have broken more British acts in America than anyone else, and the same is true in other countries.”
EMI is in crisis because it is burdened with what sources close to the company describe as a “ludicrous” amount of debt, racked up after it was bought in 2007 by Hands’s private equity company Terra Firma. EMI Music currently has three artists in the top 15 of the album chart for the first time this century, including Blur vocalist Damon Albarn’s Gorillaz, and it is on course to make a profit of £200m this year, but a staggering three quarters of that will go on interest payments.
Hands borrowed heavily to fund the deal, using money provided by Terra Firma’s investors, and EMI’s valuable back catalogue, as collateral, but even then some questioned whether he was right to pay the amount he did for a business that was struggling to come to terms with downloads and a dramatic decline in physical music sales. The industry has lost between 30% and 50% of its revenues in the last five years, but the irony is that EMI is currently outperforming its peers, which include Sony BMG and Warner Music.
It had the biggest-selling album of 2008, Coldplay’s Viva La Vida, and reissued the Beatles digitally remastered back catalogue last year. Acts including Lily Allen and Katy Perry are selling well, but the way the company is structured means it cannot trade its way out of trouble.
Before the credit crunch, loans could be refinanced cheaply, but now EMI is struggling to meet its debt repayments in the wake of the severe economic downturn. It has been forced to cut costs dramatically, laying off close to 20% of its workforce. The company is now worth £450m, around a tenth of what Hands paid for it. Some big acts, including Radiohead, have already left, muttering that the money men simply didn’t understand the music business.
Last week one of EMI’s biggest-selling groups, Pink Floyd, won a court action preventing the company from making tracks from their 1970s album Dark Side of the Moon available to download individually. That was widely portrayed as a victory for artistic integrity – the group want their masterpiece to be consumed from start to finish, as they originally intended – but it also illustrates the challenges the music industry faces in an era of huge upheaval, when illegal downloading is costing it dear and making money from talent discovered and developed at huge cost is more difficult than ever.
If Allen cannot persuade Terra Firma’s investors to stump up another £120m, EMI will be in breach of its loan terms, and its main creditor – US bank Citigroup – could seize control of the company. If it does so, Citigroup is likely to sell it to Warner Music, an American rival which was outbid by Hands for EMI three years ago. The situation is complicated by Terra Firma’s decision to sue Citigroup in New York, accusing it of forcing EMI towards administration so it can take possession of the company and make a profit from a quick sale, allegations that the bank denies.
Hands is a larger-than-life tax exile, a hero in the Square Mile whose reputation has been badly tarnished by the EMI debacle. He now concedes he overpaid for EMI, but his miscalculation means he could be about to hand a much-loved cultural institution into the keeping of the Americans.
At the end of last year Cadbury’s city shareholders agreed to sell the nation’s favourite chocolate company to Illinois-based Kraft. The prospect of another household name passing into foreign ownership, particularly a national champion in one of the few industries in which Britain still excels, is an unsettling one.
One senior music industry executive explained: “For British music, the fact that there was a very successful British company to sign for was hugely significant.” However, others say the temptation to indulge in flag-waving should be resisted. Enders said: “Britain is one of the places people come looking for talent and that won’t change. There are a lot of players in the market and advances paid to acts such as Florence and The Machine have gone up.”
If EMI does fall into the hands of an American rival, she added, it might ultimately safeguard its future. “It would be better for EMI to have less indebtedness. It will have much more firepower.”
EMI could survive. It is still lining up the sale of some prized assets. It was reported last month that the Abbey Road studios in London could be sold off. The company later insisted the studios should stay under its ownership and was working with “third parties” about funding a “revitalisation project”.
Raising the possibility that a part of the nation’s cultural heritage could be sold provides a graphic reminder of how the company’s huge debt is forcing it to make unpopular decisions.
It may not matter if British acts are no longer championed by a UK company as long as the country continues to produce talent and A&R men from overseas arrive here in search of the next Lily Allen or Amy Winehouse. “In the end the music business is the same as it ever was,” Enders said. “It’s about hits.”
guardian.co.uk © Guardian News & Media Limited 2010 | Use of this content is subject to our Terms & Conditions | More Feeds
Can I buy underwear and be green?
about 4 months ago - No comments
Say pants to the pesticides used in manufacturing cotton!
You might be doubtful that your choice of briefs can be a catalyst for global change, but consider the statistics. The UK underwear market was valued at £4.1bn in 2009. Most of that money is spent on multinational-produced pants. Some are constructed from a mixture of oil-based synthetics, including nylon (which results in emissions of nitrous oxide, a poisonous greenhouse gas).
Received wisdom tells us that cotton, the main underwear fibre, is the type of natural material we need in these delicate regions. Received wisdom is wrong. Although cotton covers less than 1% of the earth’s landmass, it soaks up 25% of all pesticides and herbicides. A single pair of cotton pants uses 10ml of pesticides.
In the past year a number of NGOs have got their knickers in a twist about cotton pesticide endosulfan, banned in 62 countries. It is linked to reproductive and developmental damage in animals and humans and is manufactured by pharmaceutical brand Bayer. PantsToPoverty.com, a leader in fairtrade cotton underwear, instigated a “pants amnesty” whereby protestors sent their worst pair of pants to Bayer – which quickly pledged to phase out endosulfan by the end of 2010.
Greenknickers.org offers zero-carbon pants from recycled sources. Whomadeyourpants.co.uk is a workers’ co-operative in Southampton employing women who have been granted asylum but find it difficult to get work. They take knickers seriously (like Alan Greenspan, who has said he looks at sales of men’s underwear to indicate the direction of the economy). Ethical smalls can become a big deal.
guardian.co.uk © Guardian News & Media Limited 2010 | Use of this content is subject to our Terms & Conditions | More Feeds
Edward McMillan-Scott: Standing up to extremism in Europe cost me my place with Tories
about 4 months ago - No comments
What the Conservatives say publicly about Europe is not what they really think, says the MEP for Yorkshire and the Humber
William Hague has been using positive words to describe the Conservative party’s future relations in government with our EU partners. I have been around the higher circles of the party for long enough to know that a visceral euroscepticism has been growing there since John Major’s day. I had a stand-up row with Hague when, while leader of the Tory MEPs, he tried to get me to back his “Never to the Euro” ticket.
It was chilling to hear the then party leader say to one very senior spokesman at an EU meeting some years ago: “We can say what we like here, but it will be different when we are in government.” I should have left then, instead of carrying on the pro-European fight from within.
David Cameron shields his europhobes. No murmur was made when last weekend Lord Tebbit in effect encouraged Conservatives to vote Ukip against the Speaker, John Bercow, in the general election. The dog whistle is really at a lower pitch: that Ukip supporters know that there is a real home for them, back in the Conservative party. Dan Hannan MEP plays the same game, even declaring that he had resigned his spokesmanship in Europe to campaign full-time for a referendum on EU in-or-out. No slapdown there, either; certainly no expulsion. But then he is a chum of Sam Cameron’s; they were at Marlborough College together.
My decision to join the Liberal Democrats this weekend was made easier by the vile letter the lawyers conducting my appeal against expulsion last year from the Conservative party received last weekend. They described it to me as “intemperate”, and advised me that, since the party refused to supply any documents about my expulsion, there was no hope of a fair final hearing next Thursday at Tory HQ. So I withdrew from the appeal and thereby resigned from the Conservative party I have served more or less faithfully for 43 years.
No doubt my successful stand for re-election last July as European parliament vice-president against the “official” candidate from Poland’s Law and Justice party, Michal Kaminski, put forward by Cameron’s controversial new group, caused him some discomfiture. But the campaign of vilification against me when I explained my reasons – that Kaminski had a recent antisemitic, homophobic and racist past – was so bizarre that it began to attract attention.
Indeed, Toby Helm in this newspaper was the most attentive. He had been present at the national commemoration in July 2001 of one of the most notorious massacres of the second world war in Nazi-occupied Poland. At Jedwabne in July 1941, more than 400 Jews were rounded up by their Polish neighbours and herded into a barn where they were burned.
At the time of the apology, Kaminski was the local MP and he made it his business to organise opposition to the commemoration. He denies this now, as he denies so much else of his easily discovered past, using the Nick Griffin defence: “If I said it then, I would not say it today.”
Last week Cameron was interviewed by the Jewish Chronicle and assured its readers that he would bear down hard on extremism in Britain. This sits uneasily with a man who propitiates it in Europe.
Conservative press officers hounded Labour over Damian McBride. The same pack have been repeatedly reported to me by journalists as using heavy tactics. One hapless Yorkshire Post journalist was called one week by six Tory boys demanding a right of reply for Kaminski. He coolly and properly said that, if he accepted that, he would also have to give space to Nick Griffin. The same team put it about that I was antisemitic because I once met Hamas – actually to tell them to stand for election. They are out again this weekend distorting the facts about my defection to the Lib Dems. I am not bitter, but they are twisted. It is not a nice party now.
A move to the Lib Dems is easier because I have known, liked and respected Nick Clegg for some years, whether as a key negotiator on trade while Sir Leon Brittan was EU commissioner or later as an MEP.
Most of my family are liberals and I am comfortable joining the Liberal family. From being a liberal Conservative I have become a conservative Liberal. And it is not a nasty party.
Edward McMillan-Scott is MEP for Yorkshire and the Humber and continues to sit as an independent vice-president of the European parliament
guardian.co.uk © Guardian News & Media Limited 2010 | Use of this content is subject to our Terms & Conditions | More Feeds
Phishing emails from ‘Amazon’ are well out of order
about 4 months ago - No comments
Fraudsters are targeting Amazon customers with emails telling them to check their account details
Customers of the online bookseller Amazon are being warned to be wary of a fake “phishing” email asking them to check their accounts.
These emails, addressed “Dear Customer”, say: “Your order has been successfully canceled [sic]. For your reference, here’s a summary of your order.” They then give an order number and a link to “order information”, which appears to take users to an external website that does not belong to Amazon. The emails have a link to the genuine Amazon.com website at the bottom, making them appear authentic.
“From time to time, customers may receive emails appearing to come from Amazon, which are actually false emails, or ‘phishing emails’,” said a spokeswoman for Amazon. “These can look similar to real Amazon emails but often direct the recipient to a false website, where they might be asked to provide account information such as their email address and password combination.”
She advises customers to send any such emails to spoofing@amazon.com and only check their order status by logging directly into their account from amazon.co.uk.
This particular spoof is one of a growing number of fake emails landing in people’s inboxes, as the global wave of phishing attacks grows. Phishing is the criminally fraudulent process of trying to illicit sensitive information such as usernames, passwords and credit card details from website users, usually via emails that look as though they genuinely come from a bank or an online retailer.
Last week the industry body UK Cards Association announced that the number of phishing attacks on bank customers had risen to 51,000 from just 1,700 five years ago. As a result of this and other methods of internet banking fraud, online banking losses totalled almost £60m in 2009 compared with £52.5m in 2008 and £23.2m in 2005. It is the only area of card fraud that has increased rather than fallen in the past year.
“Banks would never approach customers by email asking for their bank details, but people still fall for this scam,” says a spokesman for the association.
Phishing attacks have also plagued users of social networking website Twitter in the past few months. Criminals have been attempting to trick Twitter users into giving away their username and password via messages that apparently come from friends. The messages contain a link to a spoof website that looks just like the Twitter home page, where users are then prompted to enter their login details. Security experts have expressed concern that this information could then be used to gain remote access to Twitter users’ computers.
Last week the website introduced an anti-phishing service designed to protect its users from these types of attacks.
UK banking customers can see examples of recent phishing emails in a gallery, sorted by bank, on the industry’s Bank Safe Online website.
Protect yourself
• Make sure your computer has up-to-date anti-virus software and a firewall installed. Consider using anti-spyware software.
• Ensure your browser is set to the highest level of security notification and monitoring.
• Apply common sense. Your bank would never contact you to ask you to disclose your Pin or other sensitive details by email. Delete such emails and make your bank aware of what you have been sent.
• Always access online accounts by typing the bank or retailer’s address into your web browser. Never go to a website from a link in an email and then enter personal details.
guardian.co.uk © Guardian News & Media Limited 2010 | Use of this content is subject to our Terms & Conditions | More Feeds