Jason Kitcat

You could do a lot worse than read the IHT's excellent article from last week “As the pound falls, so does the mood in Britain”. Its authors Julia Werdigier and Nelson D. Schwartz put together many of the factors I believe are critical to understanding the current quagmire. Key facts:

Household debt as a percentage of disposable income in Britain hit 177 percent in 2007, compared to 141 percent in the United States.

As in Iceland, banks, real estate and other financial services boomed in London in recent years, even as other swaths of the economy withered. In recent years, this sector has been responsible for about half of total job growth in Britain even though it accounts for only about 30 percent of the economy, according to Peter Dixon, U.K. economist for Commerzbank in London.

Traditional industries [in Britain] like manufacturing have faded in recent decades, unlike on the Continent where they remain a relative counterweight to the outsized problems in the financial sector.

People spending way beyond their means was always going to come home to roost at some point. And relying on an economic model's dependence on continual 'growth' in a simplistic “more is more” sense is also a recipe for a crash at some point. Growing spending when much of it is debt must halt when finally the banks realise they need to get paid back!

But the UK's banks, so often cheered as a strength, are also a huge vulnerability. They have created disproportionate job growth and make up fully a third of our economy – that's astonishing. Banking is necessary, of course, to support commerce and personal finances. But banks should be the lubricant for the wheels of commerce – they shouldn't be the main event themselves. And herein lies the problem, the banks were creating economic growth based on models which many of their own didn't understand. The actual value produced was, in my view, very low. This was false productivity and economic success.

Banks need to step away from the centre stage, bankers need to be more humble and remember they are there to support innovators, inventors and investors who want to build sustainable long-term businesses that employ people and give back to society through steady returns, decent salaries and by paying their taxes — not dodging them.

Not until we have a diversified, sustainable economy with our eyes firmly set on the long-term can we hope to emerge from these dreadful downturns.

• Quarter of polyclinics privately run
  So far a quarter of new, government mandated, clinic will be privately run. This is part of the broader 'marketisation' of the NHS which troubles me very deeply. Also good to see the Independent ensure we aren't distracted by the government's terminological switch to 'GP-led health centres'.

• postnote: E-Democracy [PDF]
  I was asked for my thoughts and feedback on this note by the Parliamentary Office of Science and Technology which references the e-voting campaigning work I led at the Open Rights Group. It's a decent summary but that it took about 10 months to complete and publish raises questions as to how relevant POST advice can be for parliamentarians.

It looks like the lightning-strike Internet campaign has succeeded, Tom Steinberg at MySociety sums up the situation beautifully… “Today we stopped moving in the wrong direction. Tomorrow we start moving the right way.”

MySociety are leading the way on waging a campaign to prevent ministers from blocking the full release of MPs' expenses. And quite right too, in an appalling move the Labour government announced an order the day of the Heathrow runway announcement. Only a week later, it is being voted on this Thursday, 22nd January.

The order will prevent MPs' expenses being fully released to the public as ordered by the High Court last year. This is an outrage, MPs work for us not for themselves and should be leading the way in how open government can be. It's just so disappointing that when politicians at all levels are being held in such incredibly low regard they go and do this.

So many people think politicians are riding the gravy train, they are cynical and jaded about politicians and the political process. I think there are many politicians of all parties (in fact I would venture that it's probably the majority) who work incredibly hard for less pay than they would have had in the private sector.

How dare ministers let those hard working politicians down, who sacrifice family time to stand up for their constituents and the values they believe in! I'm furious… every self-interested, short sighted action like this only furthers the negative image of politicians.

Anyway it's not too late to save MPs from themselves and our disdain: * Write to your MP via WriteToThem asking them vote against this order telling them their vote will be noted on TheyWorkForYou.com until the next election. * Join this Facebook group and ask your friends to as well. * Spread the word, write to your local paper, blog the campaign, twitter – all that stuff!

More info on the MySociety Blog and TheyWorkForYou.

“Pants Exposed” or “More than pretty knickers” is a new campaign highlighting the environmental and social impacts of buying clothes. Focussing on lingerie as an eye-catching (or should I say 'cheeky') conversation-starter the campaign shouts about cotton production's high pesticide and water use, nylon's dependence on oil and carbon emissions and the dismal pay of the people making the items.

It's a well produced, focussed and effective campaign from those running responsible clothing firms. Clothing is a gigantic business and as 2009 has already seen further accusations of Primark's use of cheap labour, the fairtrade eco message is so timely and welcome. I find it disappointing that ecologically and socially responsible clothing is still nowhere near as mainstream as organic and fairtrade foods have become in the UK. Perhaps 2009 is the year?

Happy New Year everyone. I've spent the season with family, most of them including me with a cough, cold or flu!

I don't normally read the Wall Street Journal but I picked up a stray Europe edition in the train the other day and found it less hard going than I have in the past. The editorial 'Dynasty' struck me a useful antidote to perception that it's all-change in US politics. It concludes:

So to recap all of this change you can believe in: A Kennedy and Cuomo are competing to succeed a Clinton in New York; the skids are greased for a Biden to replace a Biden in Delaware; one Salazar might replace another in Colorado; and a Governor charged with political corruption in Illinois wants one of his cronies to succeed the President-elect. Let's just say we're looking forward to 2009.