- Andrew Robinson is the leader of the Pirate Party UK. The opinions expressed are his own.-

Draconian penalties for file sharing were threatened by the government on Tuesday. In addition to the previously announced 50,000 pound maximum penalty for "IP offences" we are now told that whole families are to be disconnected from the net if just one member is accused of sharing files.

Leaving aside the obvious injustice of this proposal and the fact that our court service which handled 2.1 million cases last year is not going to be able to handle the 4.9 million extra cases that the government's stated target of a 70 percent reduction in Britain's 7 million file sharers would would necessitate, I think we should also consider who stands to benefit from this proposed crackdown.

There are two major ways that the general public currently access copyrighted content without paying the rights holders. One is through file sharing, where information is freely shared for no financial gain, and the public participate in what is effectively a giant library where even the rarest snipped of music or least appreciated TV show is altruistically preserved for posterity.

The other is through the purchase of counterfeit CDs and DVDs, where organised criminals exploit the work of others for financial gain, and tend to concentrate their efforts on solely on the latest blockbuster hits.

Inexplicably, the government are prepared to trample over all semblance of natural justice in order to stamp out the former, while completely ignoring the latter. The inevitable consequence of this is that people will switch from file sharing to buying counterfeit products, which is a seemingly trivial offence with no history of incurring terrifying penalties.

These measures will not help the preservation of our culture, or win votes for the Labour party, or boost the media industry's profits. The actual beneficiaries of the file sharing crackdown will be inevitably be the organised criminal gangs producing counterfeit goods.

The Pirate Party UK proposes legalising file sharing when it is done without making profit, a policy that would allow enforcement measures to be focused on real criminals, the very gangs of organised counterfeiters who must currently be rubbing their hands in glee at Lord  Mandelson's file sharing crackdown.

Related Blog: Cutting off the music file-sharers

Oxford SWF Project, a university think tank on sovereign wealth funds, is looking at reports that the latest entry in the field could be Scotland. The project has a new post about the Scottish government floating the idea of an oil stabilisation fund to use oil and gas revenues.  It cites Scottish cabinet secretary for finance John Swinney looking abroad gleefully:

“We want to harness the benefit of oil revenues now for future years. An oil fund can provide greater stability, protect our economy and support the transition to a low carbon economy. Norway’s oil fund is worth over £200 billion – despite the first instalment being made as recently as the mid 1990s – and Alaska’s oil fund even gives money back to its citizens every year.”

The SWF project reckons the idea is a good one, but wonders if something other than meets the eye is at play. It had two questions.

First, it wonders whether the plan might just be a political rebuke for the UK government from the ruling (and separatist) Scottish National Party over a perceived lack of savings over the years.  Second, it notes that the UK government floated the idea of a strategic investments fund back in April and questions whether "the Scottish SWF reflects a ‘whatever they have, we should have’ mentality".

Here's a third question. Is it not a bit late for an oil fund? UK oil and gas output, most of which is in Scottish waters, has more than halved since 1999.

MacroScope is pleased to post the following from guest blogger Julian Chillingworth. Chillingworth is chief investment officer of UK investor Rathbones. He questions here whether Britain will face a second downturn shortly after struggling out of recession.

Are we likely to witness a two-tier recession in the UK?  Perhaps not a recession but certainly a secondary downturn. A vast number of people have enjoyed lower mortgage payments and a level of job security, but will this last?

The UK is in somewhat of a unique position in so far as it faces a regime change, with some obvious ramifications for policy.  However, whoever takes the seat (most likely the Tories) must still cut back public expenditure and raise taxation, both within the context of high unemployment.

It will require the wisdom of Solomon as a further rise in unemployment hits tax-take and results in rising social security payments. Who would want to be George Osborne?!

Key will also be the state of the financial services industry, the banks – other G7 nations do not have the ‘core component’ element to deal with in this respect – and the consumer won’t be moved in any meaningful fashion until there is real evidence of stability there.

Economic news is improving, but in the near term sentiment will be led by the direction of earnings.

The bottom line is the US might be troughing out, but this time round, we in the UK could be on our own for a little while longer.

When Prime Minister Gordon Brown reshuffled his cabinet last week, fending off a challenge to his authority, a significant outcome was the creation of one of the most powerful ministerial jobs Britain has seen in years.

Peter Mandelson, a former European commissioner who has twice served in British governments in the past and twice been forced to resign, was reconfirmed as secretary of state for business, but also given greatly expanded authorities that make him a powerful if unofficial number two to Brown.

Much fun has been made of Mandelson’s new title, which because he has been elevated to the House of Lords in order to serve in the cabinet now officially reads as:

“Baron Mandelson of Foy in the county of Herefordshire and Hartlepool in the county of Durham, Lord President of the Council, First Secretary of State, and Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills.”

But the length of the introduction aside, Mandelson’s new post puts him at the heart of tackling Britain’s worst recession in 60 years and planning for how the Labour government is going to rebound from a 20-point deficit in opinion polls to mount a challenge at the next election, due by June 2010.

Almost immediately it has also put pundits on watch about the possibility of Britain joining the European single currency, however unlikely that may be in the near term, since Mandelson is a committed European and euro-phile.

In comments in Germany last week, he described adopting the currency as “obviously” still an objective for the government.

“It is perfectly clear that the euro has been a great success in anchoring its eurozone members during this financial crisis,” Mandelson said after a speech in Berlin.

“Does it remain an important objective for Britain to find itself in the same currency as that single market in which it interacts? Obviously yes,” he said, adding: “That has to be a decision taken on the right terms, in the right circumstances and conditions, and therefore at a future time than we have now.”

Despite his hedging, bookmakers responded quickly to his comments, shortening the odds on Britain joining the euro before the end of the next parliament to 10/1.

“Europe and the single currency is always a divisive issue,” odds-maker Ladbrokes said. “But Lord Mandelson’s increasing power base means that it may again rise to the top of the political agenda.”

Surveys show that most of the British public does not favour giving up the pound for the euro, but many exporters and importers are keener on its adoption, which would neutralise exchange rate risks, even if it would also get rid of the comparative advantages sterling fluctuations can create. Almost 60 percent of Britain’s trade is with the European Union.

Brown and his predecessor Tony Blair always sidestepped the euro issue, but Mandelson’s newly influential role may allow him to nudge it back onto the agenda.

Among the surprises last week, as one cabinet minster after another stepped down, was Gordon Brown’s appointment of Sir Alan Sugar as the government’s Enterprise Tsar.

Was this a sound decision, several analysts wondered, or was it a possible case of Brown seeming to confuse the worlds of politics and show business, hoping perhaps that what works in the studio would work just as well in the real world?

The star of the BBC show “The Apprentice” was to be offered a peerage and would take a role as an adviser on matters affecting small and medium-sized businesses.

But the Conservatives are objecting. They say Sugar should not be working for the government and front a TV show at the same time, particularly when the next series of the Apprentice goes out early in 2010 just a few months before a general election. The appointment, they contend, breaches BBC rules on political independence and impartiality.

Sugar himself insists there is no conflict of interest. ‘It’s very simple - all I am is an adviser, I’m not a policymaker,’ he says. ”I have been loyal to Gordon Brown and the Labour Party for quite a while, but I also have my loyalties to the BBC.”

Do you believe Sugar should have been appointed? Or is Gordon Brown perfectly entitled to have who he likes in his government of all the talents, especially someone with such proven business acumen?

“All I can do is advise those that are in charge of making policy from a business point of view … what’s right and what’s wrong,” he told Sky News.

These days in Britain, it’s no honour to be a Member of Parliament.

Begrimed by the scandal over their petty expense claims, MPs have fallen so low in the public’s esteem as to displace even bankers and journalists from their usual ranking as the dregs of society.

No wonder. The litany of petty claims revealed by a national paper ranges from the comical — charging a parliamentary expense account for viewing pornographic movies — to the frankly injurious, in the case of MPs who hoarded receipts for garden ornaments to beautify their second homes.

Now the major parties are culling their ranks. The Speaker of the House of Commons went, Labour’s Junior Justice Minister fell on his sword, and a top Tory advisor was forced to step down over his second home claims. Both parties promise more sacrifices in this vein.

So, what now? Well, celebrities are what, in a distinctly British twist.

As parliament’s chastened lawmakers have lost the right to wax ethical on any subject, celebrities of all calibre have stepped in to fill the void. Promising cleaner politics and fresh faces, they have the nation’s attention – for now.

Take Esther Rantzen, formerly the host of a popular consumer show and a recent contestant on the reality series, “I’m A Celebrity… Get Me Out of Here!”

A few days ago she announced a possible run against Labour MP Margaret Moran in Luton South, north of London.

Rantzen told the BBC she was furious that Moran had billed her parliamentary account 22,500 pounds to repair dry rot at her second home in Southampton.

A neighbour of Moran’s there, Rantzen told television viewers that she too struggled with a dry rot problem, and “just couldn’t believe that an MP in her right mind would make that claim.”

Moran, now facing fresh allegations of misusing public funds, has since paid back the sum, but she will soon have to defend her career in front of the Labour party’s executive committee in a round of hearings over the expense crisis.

It’s not just Rantzen. Former BBC correspondent Martin Bell — a white-suited maverick who pulled off his entry into Parliament in 1997 in the midst of another sleaze scandal — signalled this week that he may jump back in the fray. And Lynn Faulds Wood, of consumer show Watchdog, chimed in to say that she “might go for someone who has really milked the system”.

Some analysts have hinted that these examples amount to ill-judged attempts to grab airtime. But to dismiss them as irrelevant in a country where powerful tabloids often set the news agenda would be far too cynical.

Over the past year, as both the economic crisis and the expenses scandal have damaged politicians’ credibility, celebrity voices have taken on more gravitas.
 
Look at Joanna Lumley and her campaign to obtain settlement rights for Nepalese Gurkhas, a mercenary brigade which has fought for the British Army in many wars.

Just a few weeks ago, the former model and Absolutely Fabulous star was outmatched in her campaign by Prime Minister Gordon Brown, who opposed settlement for all Gurkhas on the grounds that it would cost too much.

Fast forward to Thursday afternoon, when we found a subdued Brown sharing tea in the garden of Downing Street with Lumley, for an illustration of a) the power of stars to move public opinion, and b) Labour’s disorientation in these troubled times.

Not only did Brown reverse himself on the Gurkhas, granting eligibility to 15,000 veterans with more than four years of service — he gave in after being defeated in parliament for the first time since he took over from Tony Blair in 2007.

With Labour’s approval rating skimming its all time low, Brown’s surrender brings to bear the party’s desperation to get on the right side of public opinion, regardless of what it would cost them in terms of credibility.

Indeed, Britain’s politicians seem to have wasted that commodity, and it will be some time before the storm has faded from the public’s memory.

Until it does, celebrities may have their way during Question Time.

In what turned out to be something of an anti-climactic announcement, House of Commons Speaker Michael Martin has said that he will step down on June 21.

Martin has been heavily criticised for his handling of the scandal over MPs’ expenses that has tarnished the reputation of the “Mother of Parliaments”, triggered outrage across recession-hit Britain and led to opposition calls for an early general election.

The Speaker is the chief officer and highest authority of the House of Commons and is there to chair debates, call MPs to speak and generally keep order. The holder of this office is an MP, but must remain impartial at all times.

“In order that unity can be maintained, I have decided that I will relinquish the office of speaker on Sunday, June 21,” Martin said. A new Speaker will be elected the following day.

Potential successors include former Liberal Democrat leader Sir Menzies Campbell, Labour MP Frank Field and Conservative MP Sir George Young.

Who do you think it should be? Is there anyone who can bring unity back to the House and begin the process of restoring the public’s faith in our political system?

Michael Martin, Speaker of the House of Commons, is under pressure like never before and news reports say he might even announce his departure on Tuesday afternoon.

The chief officer and highest authority of the House has become a lightning rod for the strong current of anger swirling around Westminster as the row over MPs’ expenses rumbles on.

Never a Fleet Street favourite, Martin has suffered a particularly bad press this month. Quentin Letts in the Daily Mail described Martin’s behaviour, after a statement on expenses last week, as a “puce-cheeked, finger-wagging, dooon’t-you-cross-me-Jimmy tantrum, improper from any chairman of a parish meeting, let along the Speaker of a Commons in crisis”.

Simon Hoggart in the Guardian wrote after Martin’s Commons statement on Monday: “it was gruesome, horrible, pathetic and miserable. The Speaker resembled a boxer totally outfought, tottering numbly around the ring, barely aware of what was happening, staggering into his opponent’s fists, somehow upright, but swaying. He is a dead man reeling. In any humane venue, the referee would have stopped the fight. But he is the referee! And he’s not stopping anything!”

Liberal Democrat Leader Nick Clegg says Martin should go, otherwise he will die a death by a thousand cuts. 

But his supporters in the Labour Party say the Speaker is being made a scapegoat for the excesses of MPs on all sies of the House.

 What do you think? Is he being unfairly hounded out?   

It’s been a grim time for pigs.

First they were blamed for the swine flu that caused a worldwide stir after it was discovered in Mexico — and now everyone’s likening them to Members of Parliament with their snouts in the trough.

But look at the facts. The genetic make-up of the virus may have been predominantly porcine but the pigs themselves didn’t have it. Even at the supposed epicentre of the outbreak in Mexico they showed no symptoms — things reached such a state that owners of some pig farms in the US were stopping humans coming near them in case they infected their animals. The pigs were innocent OK?

And yet the name “swine flu” stuck, lots of people stopped eating pork and in Egypt they were even culled.

Now this. The image changes from dirty to greedy as all the cartoonists portray our expenses-hungry MPs as curly-tailed pinstriped pigs, shedding wads of notes from their pockets as they pile into the trough.

Experts say pigs are in fact sociable, clever animals. They clear ground, fertilise it, eat vegetable waste and then make the ultimate sacrifice for our bacon sandwiches.

As the fashion of the moment seems to be saying “sorry” for everything, perhaps we should offer our apologies to the pigs — what about a statue of a Gloucestershire Old Spot on the vacant plinth in Trafalgar Square?

Nepalese Gurkhas have a long and justifiably proud history of serving alongside Britain – Gurkha units fought with the East India Company in India as early as 1817. Over the years, the Gurkhas have developed a reputation for tenacity, bravery and dogged loyalty to their adopted army.

But when it comes to giving something back once they have finished their military service, Britain has something of a mixed track-record on the Gurkhas and has even been accused of disloyalty.

On Friday, the government announced new guidelines for Gurkhas looking to settle in Britain, including the provision that those who served before 1997 must have done at least 20 years service, must have been mentioned in dispatches and/or suffered injuries during combat if they are to meet the residency requirements.

Campaigners for Gurkha rights have denounced the new guidelines calling them a disgrace and an “act of treachery” against the men, saying only around 100 of the 36, 000 veterans would qualify.  The government says campaigners have missed the point, arguing that the new guidelines will allow more Gurkhas — up to 4, 000 — to come and settle in Britain.

It fears that without any restrictions, some 100, 000 Gurkhas and family members would apply to settle and that it would set a precedent for thousands more colonial UK soldiers to apply.

What do you think? Is the government unfairly restricting Gurkha migration and setting up a double standard for those who served before 1997 and those who have served since, or should the soldiers be forced to retire where they come from — Nepal — despite dedicating much of their lives to fighting for Britain?