HSBC scandal shows the disturbing connection between wealth and political influence in the UK

Over the last week there have emerged allegations of massive tax evasion amongst wealthy individuals, facilitated by the international banking concern HSBC (Tran, 2015). The most disturbing elements of the story have been the connections drawn between the bank, those evading tax, and the UK government.

There has been an alleged failure on the part of the treasury to pursue and prosecute, while authorities elsewhere across Europe have co-operated to secure prosecutions and recovery of moneys (Syal & Garside, 2015). There have been extravagant donations from those dodging tax to political parties here in the UK - £5m to the Conservatives, and as much as £2.5m has been connected to Labour (Leigh et al, 2015). The former chair of HSBC, Stephen Green, is even a government minister (Garside et al, 2015).

Prime Minister Cameron has thus far issued the same kinds of denial that he made in relation to the scandal surrounding his former director of communications Andy Coulson, even as Labour have tried to press home the connections between the Conservative Party and the perpetrators of this latest scandal (Watt & Wintour, 2015). Other political figures have even been quick to suggest that light avoidance, though not necessarily outright evasion, is normal in British society (Wintour, 2015).

As with the hacking scandal that brought Rupert Murdoch before a parliamentary inquiry, the extensive connections between wealth and political influence are disturbing. Money-making capitalist enterprises have been allegedly helping the wealthy break the law for a profit, all while both groups are closely connected to UK government ministers and political parties.

We are reminded once again of the need for vigilance. But sometimes even that isn't enough. When powerful institutions are shrouded in secrecy, hidden by their wealth and influence, we need something more. We need greater transparency, in both the public and private sectors, along with comprehensive political reform to ensure that justice and democracy can't undermined for a price.

==========
References:
==========
+ Mark Tran's 'The HSBC files: what we know so far'; in The Guardian; 11 February 2015.

+ Rajeev Syal & Juliette Garside's 'HSBC files: tax chief 'confident' civil servants told ministers about data'; in The Guardian; 11 February 2015.

+  David Leigh, James Ball, Juliette Garside & David Pegg's 'HSBC files show Tories raised over £5m from HSBC Swiss account holders'; in The Guardian; 11 February 2015.

+ Juliette Garside, David Leigh, James Ball & David Pegg's 'Ex-HSBC boss Stephen Green: the ethical banker with questions to answer'; in The Guardian; 9 February 2015.

+ Nicholas Watt & Patrick Wintour's 'Ed Miliband attacks 'dodgy' PM for failure to answer HSBC tax questions'; in The Guardian; 11 February 2015.

+ Patrick Wintour's 'Lord Fink: tax avoidance is normal in British society'; in The Guardian; 12 February 2015.

Australia's leadership challenge is just the latest embarrassment for the two-party majoritarian system

Last week Australian politics found itself thrown into crisis, as once again the position of Prime Minister was turned into the subject of an internal party squabble. Tony Abbot, PM and Liberal Party leader, has had his leadership challenged following collapsing ratings in the polls (Jabour & Hurst, 2015).

This is just the latest embarrassment for the old two-party system. That system - which revolves around two monolithic groups, with machine politician leaders, using cheap popular appeals and sound bites to build workable majorities, or to struggle over control of them - in the end merely demonstrates its own weakness.

By centralising power around individual figures, the focus is put on the squabbles for control over the establishment. Those squabbles, over often marginal differences, only leads to an increasing detachment from reality that alienates voters and shuts down open political discussions. The disaffection of voters and the narrowing of choice reduces politics to little more than a stagnant and unstable popularity contest.

This is not the first time that Australia has faced this particular kind of crisis (Howden, 2015). Both major parties, Liberal and Labor, have had a number of so called leadership 'spills', where the party leadership is challenged, over the last half decade. The Labor Party suffered through four contests in just four years, as Julia Gillard and Kevin Rudd repeatedly clashed between 2010 and 2013 (Phillips, 2012; Pearlman, 2013).

Coming into power on the back of that Labor Party squabbling, the Liberal leader Tony Abbott was elected offering stability (BBC, 2015). And yet, even if Abbott survives this challenge, his time as leader is limited. His rivals are circling and his authority, or popularity, has been undermined (Massola & Kenny; 2015).

In his desperate attempts to ward off those challengers, Abbot has been telling the same old story, warning Australians, and his own party, to be wary of turning leadership into a Game of Thrones (Pearlman, 2015). But it's a tired tale, used to justify centralised and unchallenged leadership. Justifying centrality and authority, not on their own merits, but as a ward and bastion against chaos.

It is the same story in the UK, where a free political choice is suppressed by the two major parties, Conservative and Labour, who cling to power by scaremongering against third parties, warning against split votes, hung parliaments and coalitions (BBC, 2010). These methods are justified as a practical and necessary response to the iniquities of the electoral system, and yet they persist in their refusal to pursue the meaningful electoral reform needed to make politics more representative - all to protect the fragile balance of their system. And so far those methods have worked.

However, the two-party system is fracturing all over the world. The squabbles over power and the suppression of alternatives should, by now, simply act as a reminder that the majoritarian two-party system simply does not offer enough accountability or representation.

These leadership squabbles simply emphasise the detachment from reality suffered at the highest levels of power. In Australia, both Liberals (who in Australia are conservatives in everything but name) and Labor, and in the UK, both Conservatives and Labour, all of the mainstream parties are guilty.

These parties support a system that hands power to one person, who is surrounded by a small group that represents just a fraction of the population, and has been tightly whipped into an ideological line. People are alienated from control over political decisions. Even parliaments and assemblies are regularly cut out of the process.

There is a great danger in structuring the stability of our institutions around any one individual and the power they can muster in support. It has frequently become the means by which an isolated elite make serious and impactful decisions - affecting real people's lives - in ivory towers detached from reality.

We need to find new ways to govern. We need more choice, more representation, and governments that reflect the whole electorate not just the loudest minority.

==========
References:
==========
+ Bridie Jabour & Daniel Hurst's 'Australian prime minister Tony Abbott may be deposed after party revolt'; in The Guardian; 6 February 2015.

+ Saffron Howden's 'Australian politics: Why is it so tumultuous?'; on The BBC; 8 February 2015.

+ Liam Phillips' 'Labor leadership challenge - Gillard vs Rudd'; in The Sydney Morning Herald; 27 February 2012.

+ Jonathan Pearlman's 'Julia Gillard defeated by Kevin Rudd in leadership challenge'; in The Telegraph; 26 June 2013.

+ 'Australian PM Tony Abbott 'will fight leadership challenge'; on The BBC; 6 February 2015.

+ James Massola & Mark Kenny's 'Supporters say Malcolm Turnbull will run against Tony Abbott for Liberal Party leader if spill motion succeeds'; The Sydney Morning Herald; 7 February 2015.

+ Jonathan Pearlman's 'Tony Abbott faces 'Games of Thrones' showdown'; in The Telegraph; 8 February 2015.

+ 'Election 2010: Cameron warns over hung parliament'; on The BBC; 17 April 2010.

Into the Woods reminds us of what fairy tales do best

(This article contains spoilers for Into the Woods, out at cinemas now.)

Disney's latest musical fairy tale Into the Woods takes on the weighty task of carrying the legacy of dark and twisted Grimm tales. Adapted to the screen from a stage musical, it follows the intertwining stories of several famous fairy tale characters.

The musical fairytale plays with the conceits of its main characters From the vanities of the princes, to the protectiveness of a mother, the self-burdening masculinity of the baker, and the selfishness of a greedy little girl; these flaws are all toyed with, deconstructed, and then punished severely - as befitting a Grimm fairy tale.

This fairytale, as the fairy tales of old, shows us what we rarely see in real life: significant repercussions for greed, cruelty, and malice, and also of anger and revenge. However, there are some conservative overtones to the warnings about dreams and wishes that take us from our responsibilities. It offers us a glimpse of life outside of our everyday comfortable routines, and shows us what we can reach for and what it can cost us if we reach recklessly and fail.

The tale, though, does also stray into offering a challenge to the perceived expectations of the audience. When the old witch is returned to her beauty, expectations are firmly defied when that does not mean returning her to youth.

Into the Woods does what fairy tales do best. It shows us the price of our own conceits, mocks our vices and preoccupations, and promises us that adventure awaits us outside our front door - so long as we're willing to accept the price and consequences of our actions.