Covid-19 & the market

Economists, businesses and social commentators have spoken at great length about how the Covid-19 crisis has shocked the market. Flying between meetings might be a thing of the past for many companies as business goes on as normal by utilising videoconferencing software. Home delivery services are on the increase, whether it is small businesses trying to cope with the lack of footfall or larger companies providing home deliveries for those not wanting to break quarantine. Netflix and other streaming services have seen an increase of users.

The market is changing. The way we operate is changing. These are changes that will linger for long after Covid-19 has become a thing of the past. But, as is a theme above, Covid-19 has done one thing especially well and that is boosting the information and technology and digital services sector.

I work in the aviation sector, arguably the hardest hit by the Covid-19 pandemic. Over the last week:

  • British Airways has cut 12,000 jobs
  • Virgin Atlantic has cut 3,000 jobs
  • Boeing has reduced production by 50%
  • Airbus has reduced production by 35%
  • GE has cut 10,000 aerospace jobs
  • Rolls-Royce set to cut 8,000 aviation jobs

People will travel for business and for pleasure but getting back to the levels seen before the Covid-19 crisis will be a rough, but is it right for companies to reduce their numbers? And how is the move supported by government given those companies listed above have such high profit margins? The BBC today (6th May) released a piece of news regarding Qatar Airways:

“In February, Qatar Airways increased its stake in British Airways owner IAG to 25% as part of its strategy to invest in other carriers.

This boost in confidence in IAG also comes not long after we have found out that the Spanish government has provided IAG with a substantial €1 billion-euro bailout package. This has, however, been directed toward IAG’s low-cost airlines – Vueling and Iberia. The amount has been agreed, but not yet been processed.

IAG has seen year-on-year profits before the Covid-19 pandemic (as illustrated below) leading to staff threatening strike action in regards to pay. Which raises the question; why was British Airways was so keen on making 12,000 staff redundant?

It is often argued that companies need to make reductions because they need to survive and to stay afloat. A slashing of jobs means that the company can go on. But Covid-19 removes us from what are considered standard levels of business practice and instead shoves us back into the realm of fiscal tightening not seen since the financial crash.

It is precisely because of this debacle that we need companies to put their staff first and continue to keep them in employment. We limped out of the last financial catastrophe with a huge divide between those that have money and have the facilities to store it in offshore accounts or who bet against the market, a practice known as “shorting”. The majority of us don’t have these capabilities and are therefore more likely to suffer as a result in companies clamming up with the money that their employees helped them create.

The money going into hands of employees means that more funds will be diverted to other areas of the economy that have seen a drop because of Covid-19 such as the retail sector, restaurants, pubs, renovations and home improvement that would bring back the fleet of self-employed people who suffered a shock after Rishi Sunak’s emergency Covid-19 budget. People will also be able to pay their mortgages and their rent instead of facing the ridiculous one month deferral period in which landlords are not allowed to kick out tenants.

Unprecedented times call for unprecedented measures. This is one of those times when big businesses need to not stem the flow of money, but approach their workers with a calm and collected resolve to spread money and help stimulate the economy. And maybe even win back some trust and faith from their employees because, when the time came, the companies did the right thing.

Lack of preparedness for Covid-19

Much of the UK breathed a sigh of relief when Rishi Sunak claimed payouts for business and that employees would be given 80% of their wage whilst on furlough. However, despite being the Chancellor of the party “for business”, they offered not much shy of a middle finger to the self-employed.

The problems are myriad and systemic and, despite Boris Johnson standing outside No.10 and clapping for the NHS, have been created by the very government now trying its best to make a show of appreciation to the public services and other key workers.

According to the latest Private Eye (1520), the UK came 2nd in the Global Health Security Index which ranked countries according to their ‘”capability to prevent and mitigate epidemics and pandemics.”‘ So what went wrong? Why is it that a country that came 2nd in such an index had such a sluggish response to the Covid-19 emergency?

For the most part, it was Boris Johnson attempting to keep the country open for business. Secondly, the NHS was ill-equipped to deal with such issues due to outsourcing. This was the process by which different sections of the NHS’s prime functions were disbanded between private companies. Thirdly, and this is still under debate, the government’s stance against the European Union may have stood in the way.

Communications regarding the government stance have also been slow in coming largely due to the fact that the Central Office for Information (the office responsible for communicating to the country at times of war and emergency, was slashed and eventually dissolved completely in 2011 as a result of austerity measures. It was an easy choice because it was seen as an invention and tool of the “nanny state”.

Instead, communications come through third party agencies and were therefore slow to be put together. Boris Johnson has also had to rely on the BBC coverage of daily briefings, that very same organisation that he is trying to break up and throw to the wolves.

As climate change alters our landscape, we are expected to suffer at the hands of new and old diseases. Malaria, new strains of Coronavirus, you name it. That raises the question of just what are we going to do the next time around if another pandemic were to happen?

Hopefully, we won’t have Boris Johnson or his supporting cabinet who seem to think that lying would make for good policy when it comes to talking about PPE, death tolls and testing kits. We should also reverse any privatisation of NHS services and we should look more at publicly-funded emergency systems whether it is a designated communications network or pre-fab buildings ready to be up and running in a few days time. What is for certain – we need to stop focusing on media spin and how politicians look as opposed to what they are actually doing.

Phrase dissection: “Politics of envy”

Anyone reading the news nowadays would be remiss not to have noticed the surge in populism over the past few years. 2016 especially saw a seismic shift that only few people with their ear to the ground were able to predict.

With the rise of populism came a rise in factionalism and tribalism.

Socialism, democracy, capitalism, republicanism and liberalism pulled out the stops, jumped online, onto the pages of opinion pieces and the pages of newspapers and started swinging.

With competing ideologies came a rise in word-warfare and phrase-flinging.

Politics of envy

This is actually a phrase that’s been used for years by high earners, Tories taking swipes at other parties, and people of a certain class who disagree with liberal, democratic or socialist thinking.

If workers and/or unions believe that employees should have better wages, a place in boardrooms or at least a stronger voice in the workplace, they are deemed to be suffering from envy. Even people who think that higher earners should pay more tax are also often thrown under the “politics of envy” banner.

So, anyone on a lower rung of the socio-economic ladder who wishes to get ahead or go further in life.

But the phrase itself needs some dissecting.

Those people who are very well off have a tendency to protect themselves, their companies, and their profit margins. Businesses progress by making sure that they repeatedly turn a profit. This is because they have a duty to give their shareholders a healthy return on their investment.

But companies are only as good as their employees. If a construction company such as Persimmon Homes generates a multimillion pound profit, is it because of the person who started the company or because of the crews who worked through all weathers to build homes?

Work is the biggest killer outside of natural death. Workplace accidents. Slips, trips and falls. Muscular-skeletal injuries. People breathe noxious and hazardous substances. Later in life people will experience back problems, breathing difficulties, cancer through exposure. A vast array of problems from a lifetime of arduous work.

There is a romanticism about “an honest day’s labour.” Earning an “honest living.” There is truth in this. Working laborious jobs and seeing a job completed comes with an immense amount of satisfaction. But that satisfaction of a job well done should come with a wage that mirrors the worker’s toils. But those toils have a heavy toll on the body and, often without financial security through sustainable wages, on the mind.

On the other hand, higher earners have a longer life expectancy and are far less likely to suffer from those physical detriments that are incurred through physical labour.

Is it therefore politics of envy to want more money for your efforts or to want a certain quality of life? Or is it just politics of what is fair? After all, people sacrifice themselves.


“Politics of envy” is a phrase used to dismiss any kind of socialist thought, even that kind of socialist thought to which most people adhere. Like wanting a free NHS. Like wanting the more wealthy and corporations to pay their fair share of taxes or perhaps wanting to redistribute wealth.


Is it fair to claim that ordinary people looking for true representation within the political system are suffering from politics of envy when modern day politics is controlled by the dispersion and directing of capital?


So is it really politics of envy? And even if it is, how does that compare against those who partake in the politics of greed?

Did you vote for Henry Smith?

Henry Smith was re-elected as MP for Crawley in this year’s general election.

But what does Henry Smith stand for? We can get an idea by looking at his voting history. He has voted:

  • Against banker’s bonus tax – despite bankers being responsible for sinking the economy in 2007/2008
  • Against gay rights
  • Against laws promoting equality and human rights
  • Against a “right to remain for EU nationals” already living in the UK
  • Against benefits raising in-line with prices
  • Against higher benefits over longer periods for those unable to work due to illness or disability
  • For increasing rate of VAT (BUT against increasing rate of taxes for those paid over £150,000
  • For allowing employees to exchange some employment rights for shares in the company they work for
  • For more restriction of trade union activity
  • For reducing capital gains tax
  • For reducing corporation tax
  • For raising England’s undergraduate tuition fees to £9,000
  • For reducing government funding for local government
  • Against a more proportional system for electing MPs
  • For greater restrictions on campaigning by third parties, such as charities, during elections
  • For mass surveillance of people’s communications and activities
  • Against measures to prevent climate change
  • For selling England’s state-owned forests
  • Against financial incentives for low carbon emission electricity generation methods
  • Against greater public control of bus services
  • For capping civil service redundancy payments
  • Against restrictions on fees charged to tenants by letting agents

After a visit to the Cayman Islands, Henry Smith also supported the fight against anti-money laundering measures and criticised plans to introduce more transparency to the islands. In other words, Henry Smith supports offshore tax havens.

The Panama Papers have shown that offshore tax havens support organised crime including drugs and human-trafficking and terrorist cells whilst also allowing banks to hide money and avoid paying those taxes that could go toward public services.

Does Henry Smith stand up for the average person? Please check the site:

They Work For You

Post-election Questions

The election was vicious. Not the kind of high-quality sparring that we were once used to when politicians fought tactically over policies and with pride and decency. Instead, we saw tribalism, character assassination and online vitriol the likes of which have left most of us flabbergasted and confused.

Either way, people gave the Conservatives the majority meaning that, unless some kind of large-scale scandal arises, we are leaving the European Union. If Scotland and Northern Ireland will be part of that process is yet to be determined.

Boris Johnson may claim that we should let the “healing begin”, but he and the country now face some very serious questions. Such as:

Will Boris Johnson now open the enquiry into Russian involvement in the 2016 referendum? This is an enquiry into hostile foreign forces meddling in western democracy that Boris Johnson previously quashed.

What is the future for the Labour government? Do they continue to follow so-called “Corbynism” or do they move on to greener pastures in a bid to win back the vote of the working classes?

Will the government move toward green energy or will they continue pursuing fracking?

Will Labour make fresh moves to push Anti-Semitism from their ranks?

Will the government show the full document (and not the redacted version of which three-quarters were blacked out) in which they are shown to push a “pro-shale narrative” on the communities in which they plan to undertake fracking?

Despite leaving the European Union, will government still make sure that they follow the upcoming directive to make sure that transactions to offshore tax-havens are made transparent?

What do the government plan to do about disenfranchisement of the “North” and other areas across the UK?

Is the UK going to become a vassal state for the United States?

How is the NHS really going to be effected?

Now that we should be without bias, are the British public ready to return to fact-checking and verification and to take part in face to face discourse, and hold politicians to account when they lie or do not deliver on their promises.

Will Boris Johnson finally be interviewed by Andrew Neil?

Two things are certain:

1. Journalists have a hell of a lot of work to do to make sure that people are held to account.

2. Government have to make sure that they do everything they can to keep disinformation and misinformation out of the public sphere.

Cut disc

I have suffered from Sciatica for a year and a bit now. In most cases, Sciatica disappears after a few months. In this case it kept on for 14 months, until yesterday.

I had an operation called a discectomy in which part of the disc pushing onto the nerve was cut back, allowing my Sciatic nerve some breathing space.

I am now sofa-bound. Every time I get up and walk around it feels like my midriff is going to just snap and I’ll end up doubled over, my eyes looking between my feet.

The anaesthetic was amazing. Some clear liquid and an oxygen mask before the white liquid, the main barbiturate solution, pumped in.

‘Do you feel a bit light-headed?’

I nod and the next thing I know I’m waking up in another room. The surgeon tells me something that I think is meant to be important but I have no idea what it is. Why do they have to tell you how it went when you’re out of it? For all I know I could have been left paralysed but missed the memo.

I was given an egg sandwich and a cup of tea. I chilled and listened to the radio. It was a pretty easy recovery, until I got home and the pain meds wore off.

Spectating The Spectator: Trading places

Image source: Pindex

The Spectator’s 10th August, 2019 edition of The Spectator opened up with a piece called Trading places.

The article considers the argument that the UK should look positively on a trade deal with America in place of the trade deal which we already have with the EU.

“The reality is that free trade is almost always on balance a good thing, regardless of which country is it conducted with. That said, there will always be compromises to be made. Vested interests to be tackled. Product standards have to be reviewed…Good trade deals can even destroy native industries – but the overall effect of global trade is to boost the creation of wealth…The important thing is to make the right concessions.”

The U.K already has these concessions with the European Union but with the extra added benefit that, as a democracy, the United Kingdom also has a vote and therefore a voice in the passing of European law. The author of this piece is essentially trying to argue for a position that would make the UK worse off.

“Free trade with the US is opposed by some Remainers for no better reason than because it is advocated by Leavers.”

The author is clearly a hypocrite. What kind of bias does it take to argue that getting away from our closest allies (culturally and by locality) and toward the US would be preferential over the kind of deal we already have? To say that Remainers oppose a deal with America for no other reason than Leavers want it seems exactly what this piece is arguing…only the other way.

‘…the NHS has always outsourced some of its services – which last year accounted for 7 per cent of its budget. There is no reason why US providers should not be allowed to compete for this work on equal terms with British companies.”

That was not the line towed by Leave supporting parties and groups throughout the 2016 referendum and there is also solid reasoning why the US should not be competing on the same terms with British companies: American health care standards are lower than the UK’s. Not only are American health care standards lower, the introduction of more private interests within the NHS goes against public polling which shows that people want private companies kept the at the biggest possible distance from health care system.

The NHS is not the author’s only area of attack. On GM foods:
‘No one can point to ill-effects, and for good reason: GM foods are subject to far more scrutiny than non-GM foods.’

The reason for the GM foods being held to higher scrutiny is because…well…they are genetically modified. A crop created as opposed to one grown is no doubt going to undergo far more scrutiny because it has to pass myriad tests that would decide whether said food was safe for consumption.

The simple truth is that America uses GM crops as it helps mass production which ultimately makes the crop cheaper to make. European food standards are among the highest in the world whilst America have been time and again castigated for packing out their foods with copious amounts of highly addictive and highly fattening corn-syrup.

‘Then there is the practice of washing chicken in chlorine, which has been continuously cited as a reason why we shouldn’t do a trade deal with the US. Even the EU, when it banned chlorine-washed chicken in 1997, came to the conclusion that the practice was perfectly acceptable from a food-standard point of view – but banned it anyway on the flimsy pretext that it might provide farmers with a sense of false security. A better explanation is that it spied the opportunity to snuff out US competition for less efficient European producers.’

The pretext was far from “flimsy”. For instance, the European Commission decided that using chlorine to wash chicken dramatically lowered standards because it allowed farmers to get away with providing poor conditions. As highlighted by Ben Chapman writing for the Independent (Sunday 3 March, 2019) – “Advocates of this approach” (not washing chicken in chlorine) “say that it leads to higher standards of hygiene and animal welfare because farmers must take care at each stage of the process rather than relying on a chemical bath to kill any harmful pathogens after animals are slaughtered.”

The idea that European farms are supposedly “less efficient” is exactly because European standards are higher and do not lower themselves to mass-production quality levels, which results in questionable practices like washing chicken in chlorine. The author also argues that the EU was being protectionist in its endeavours, something which many conservative thinkers is one of the best outcomes of Donald Trump’s America. When the EU tries to put EU farmers and food safety levels first, it is chastised.

What it comes down to is facts. Is chlorine washed chicken okay to eat? Looking back on Ben Chapman’s piece for the Independent, the answer is quite clear.

Are we so loathing of the European Union that we would opt for subservience to the US and lower not only our standards but our global standing?