Share
Jason Ford
Jason Ford
News editor
History lessons
Today marks the anniversary of two events whose after-effects will continue to reverberate around the world for many years to come.
It is officially the third anniversary of ’start of credit crunch’: the moment when, in 2007, short-term credit markets froze after BNP Paribas suspended three investment funds worth €2bn, citing problems in the North American sub-prime mortgage sector.
The European Central Bank added €94.8bn of funds to money markets as interbank lending froze but in the months that followed banks in Europe and the US reported billions in losses which forced some - including Northern Rock and Lloyds - to seek state assistance.
Last week, The Engineer ran a report on how small businesses are still struggling to obtain credit despite encouraging financial results from some of the major banks.
Lloyds Banking Group, for example, recorded £1.6bn profit for the first half of the year and HSBC, which survived the financial crisis without government support, posted a £7bn gain.
In our report, Phil McCabe, a spokesman for Forum of Private Business, told The Engineer: ‘I think it particularly galling when you put the profit these banks are posting next to the kinds of sums of money our members are seeking.’
Those of you not favourably disposed toward the Square Mile may wish to skip this paragraph, given that The Sunday Telegraph ran a report yesterday that said financial sector bonuses paid in 2009/2010 stood at £10bn compared to £8bn in 2008/2009.
But it’s also the aniversary of an event that puts the economic woes of the past three years into some perspective. 65 years ago today the US dropped a second nuclear bomb on Japan. The ’Fat Man’ bomb was dropped over Nagasaki, three days after the bombing of Hiroshima. Those events resulted in the Japanese surrender at the end of World War II on August 15. The plutonium-based weapon killed around 74,000 and injured as many.
The nuclear deterrent was very much on The Engineer’s agenda last week when we reported on the spat developing between the Treasury and the Ministry of Defence about funding for the Trident programme.
Defence secretary Dr Liam Fox said the £20bn programme should be funded by the Treasury because continuous at-sea defence is a matter of national security. Chancellor George Osborne said funding for Trident should be covered entirely by Ministry of Defence’s budget allowances.
The debate about having a nuclear capability in a post Cold War world rumbles on and your thoughts on the subject are most welcome.
However, getting to the stage of having a deterrent - namely the build and test - has left many former service personnel seeking compensation from the government for injuries sustained during tests in the 1950s in Australia, Malden Island and near Christmas Island.
A report in today’s Metro says that over 1,000 nuclear test veterans are trying to secure £20m in compensation and are urging the government to provide the funds ‘before any more of them die’.
From nuclear weapons to renewable energy and news that the Local Government Association (LGA) has released estimates showing that council-owned wind turbines and solar panels on town halls, council homes, leisure centres and other council buildings across Britain could produce anything up to £100m a year.
LGA believes new rules allowing town halls to sell green energy could create a ’multi-million pound business helping protect frontline services and keep council tax low’.
Click here to read how the coalition government plans to reverse the 1976 Local Government Act which prevents councils from selling electricity.
Readers' comments (5)
Trevor Best | 9 Aug 2010 2:20 pm
Reducing Naval capabilities is an easy way to save expenditure and perhaps we don't need so much home seas protection now that we are integrated in the EEC and most of the major countries of the world. BUT, with all the dangers lurking including terrorism, nuclear developments in the Middle Eastern countries should we leave it all to the USA to keep the peace.
REMEMBER THE FALKLANDS. We had to go cap in hand to commercial shipping companies to ask if they wouldn't mind transporting our lads so they could protect our responsibilities in far off lands. The Minister who decides to trim the Navy beyond effectiveness will more than likely be out of office when we need the ships so it will be nothing to do with him and we, the population, will have to pick up the pieces. Nothing good will come of this.
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Peter Field | 9 Aug 2010 5:36 pm
The Ministry of Defence is responsible for the country's security not the Treasury although they could ask for more money from the treasury.
To save money, they could delay or cancel trident and in the meantime wet-lease tridents from the USA in the unlikely event we and not the USA had a major threat.
In war time, bulk transport of troops should be by commercial transport, commandeered by Government. Dont waste money on idle forces transport.
The greatest threat to our way of life and freedoms comes from the EU and we could save billions by leaving the EU staying in NATO and the Commonwealth.
Money saved could ensure our THREE services are financed.
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Mr Pepper | 9 Aug 2010 8:24 pm
The Hiroshima event really does puts events into focus. - On a more mundane level, the government is really overplaying its austerity agenda and they will do not appear willing to pull back until some harm is exacted somewhere on the economy, be it social policy, housing, space, academia, or a combination thereof. The banks are really no more than a fortress of greed to whom the government is obeisant.
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Diane Kivi | 10 Aug 2010 9:46 am
Everyone who I has asked the question, "How has the posession of Nuclear wepons to the security of the country?" Nobody has been able to give me a convincing answer. I say scrap Trident and save 10 Billion and spend the rest of general public spending objectives, i.e. non defence.
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Anonymous | 13 Aug 2010 4:51 pm
Well, Diane, that might be because your question is incoherent. Maybe you meant to ask "How has the possession of nuclear weapons contributed to the security of the country?"
Twice in the first half of the 20th Century, British cities were bombed by a foreign power. In the 1940s, a great number of bombs were dropped on Britain, which faced a very real threat of invasion by an aggressive enemy that had just invaded most of Europe.
In the second half of the 20th Century, although Britain faced another potentially belligerent enemy, it possessed nuclear weapons, and both sides recognised that war came at an unacceptably high price.
During this latter period, British armed forces were engaged in various conflicts around the world, but at no time did the British mainland itself come under attack from a foreign power. Whatever the rights and wrongs of these engagements, they were wars whereby the British government had the option of withdrawing without risking the survival of the state.
So, possession of nuclear weapons has contributed 60 years of relative peace and security to this country.
How best to ensure the continued security of the country in the future is another question.
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment