Britain Sleep Walks Into a Police State as Political Dissent is Criminalised

“From foul deeds endless tragedy arises,” the World Socialist Web Site wrote, commenting on the state execution of innocent Brazilian worker, Jean Charles de Menezes, by plainclothes policemen on a London subway train on July 22, 2005.

Events have tragically confirmed that warning. In the years since Menezes’ killing, for which no one has ever been held to account, the legal framework of a police state has been enacted in Britain.

The implications of this have been made clear over the last weeks.

Since the start of April, some 300 people have been arrested and detained in just three police operations. The vast majority of these were rounded up in two of these operations, both focusing on a supposed threat to “public order”.

Maintaining public order is now a pseudonym for the criminalising of political dissent.

Even before the G20 summit of world leaders began in London, five people were arrested in Plymouth under the Terrorism Act, reportedly accused of possessing “material relating to political ideology”.

All were released without charge, but the fact that political activism is considered a criminal offence in 21st century Britain was subsequently writ large on the streets of the capital.

Beginning April 1, a massive police operation was set in place around the G20 summit. Hundreds of people, legally exercising their right to protest, were “kettled”—forcibly held behind police cordons for up to seven hours—in the side streets of central London.

It was behind one of these cordons that Ian Tomlinson—attempting to make his way home after work—was attacked from behind by a baton-wielding masked police officer. He died moments later.

Eyewitness accounts, video footage and photo stills provide conclusive proof that the police’s attack against Tomlinson was par for the course during the protests.

The police actions had nothing to do with ensuring “public safety”. If anything, they constituted a deliberate attempt to provoke disorder as the pretext for further repression. This is underscored by evidence of plain-clothes officers armed with batons striking out at demonstrators, as well as the participation of the Territorial Support Group—a special quasi-paramilitary police unit which was involved in several of the most publicised incidents, and whose identification numbers were concealed.

Downloads of film footage of the police in action at the G20 protests is said to be particularly high in Brazil—Menezes’ birthplace, and a country bitterly familiar with police savagery against political dissidents.

For good reason, the government attempted to ensure that its “public order” policy would not see the light of day. While police now routinely photograph and demand the identification and addresses of people taking part in lawful demonstrations, watching the watchers is illegal in New Labour’s Orwellian dystopia.

Less than one month before the protests, section 76 of the Counter-Terrorism Act 2008 came into force, providing for the arrest and imprisonment of anyone taking photographs of police officers.

In one instance during the G20 protests, recorded on camera, police officers instructed photographers and news crews to leave the vicinity within 30 minutes or face arrest.

This in a country whose population is now one of the most heavily surveilled in the world. The UK has the greatest concentration of closed circuit TV cameras per head of population. Moreover, without any parliamentary debate let alone public consent, recent legislation has compelled all Internet service providers to retain data from emails and website visits for up to one year. Details of phone calls and text messages can be similarly stored, and made available to the government and other official agencies.

As if such powers were not enough for police to be aware of the movements of any potentially “significant” individuals, on April 13, police in Nottingham carried out the unprecedented “pre-emptive” arrests of 114 people. No crime had been committed. The arrests were made purely on the basis that the police “suspected” a plan by environmentalists to target a power station in Nottingham. While no charges have as yet been made, the arrests were used to mount a trawling operation, raiding homes and seizing personal papers and computers.

In between the London and Nottingham operations, police in the north-west of England mounted major “anti-terror” raids, involving dozens of armed officers. Twelve men, mainly foreign students, were detained as part of what was claimed to be an operation against an imminent terrorist attack.

Once again no charges have been made. Under British anti-terror laws, suspects can be held for 28 days without charge. It is widely reported that no evidence has so far been recovered to substantiate claims of a terrorist emergency.

All the recent police operations are predicated on the more than 200 pieces of separate anti-terror legislation enacted by the Labour government over the last years, and consolidated in the Terrorism Act 2006 which criminalises the mere expression of opinion deemed unacceptable by the Home Secretary.

At the time, then Prime Minister Tony Blair defended the measures on the grounds that political exigencies meant the “rules of the game” had changed.

This established a new legal principle—guilty on the say-so of the powers-that-be. The “rules” now in operation are those where armed police swoops and the targeting of political dissent is a matter of routine. In February this year, in a move which received barely any coverage, the Association of Chief Police Officers set up the Confidential Intelligence Unit, targeted at “domestic extremists”. Assuming the “counter-subversion” functions usually conducted by MI5, the CIU is dedicated to the surveillance of radical groups, including placing informers amongst their numbers.

The assault on civil liberties is not specific to Britain. It is a tendency evidenced throughout the so-called “advanced democracies”. Indeed proclamations of “democracy” increasingly function as a thin veneer, behind which the state has abrogated to itself near autocratic powers.

That this finds no principled opposition from within the ruling establishment or its liberal “critics” must serve as a warning.

The essential driving force behind the adoption of such dictatorial methods is not the maintenance of “public order”, but the need to defend the existing order, preserving the wealth and power of a privileged few at the expense of working people under conditions of the greatest breakdown in the world capitalist economy since the 1930s.

The defence of democratic rights requires breaking the monopoly of the financial oligarchy and its representatives over political life. This can only be achieved through the independent initiative of the working class, fighting for the reorganisation of society on a socialist basis.

Source: MarketOracle

PM's Just Saved Apocalypse for Later

HALLELUJAH! Gordon’s saved the world. But what about Britain?
To be fair, the Prime Minister pulled off a brilliant propaganda coup — and delivered real help for stricken economies around the world.

The good news is that bankrupt countries in Eastern Europe will not go bust or — more importantly — drag everyone else down with them.

That’s because the International Monetary Fund — the world’s pawn shop — can now print its own money and bail out basket-case economies such as Hungary.

“So, no Apocalypse Now,” says my City analyst.

The bad news is that Britain looks like becoming one of those basket cases.

Taking a begging bowl to the IMF would be a grotesque humiliation for a nation so recently rated as the world’s fourth-largest economy.

Yet in perhaps his most outrageous spin operation ever, Prince of Darkness Peter Mandelson is already smoothing the path.

Britain is not “head of the queue” for IMF money, he told C4 News. But there would be “no stigma” for Britain if we were.

An unnamed minister, who must surely be Mandy, later told a newspaper: “Previously, a country would only go to the IMF if they were in a very bad state. It was a bit like going to Accident and Emergency to get urgent help. This new facility is like getting wellbeing care or going to a spa to recuperate.”

Before you swallow that nonsense, listen to Simon Johnson, the IMF’s former chief economist.

“With all due respect to Gordon Brown and his ministers, they need some help right now,” he told the same C4 programme.

“Your economy — the UK economy — is in big trouble.”

Who do you believe?

I don’t want to rain on Gordon Brown’s parade, but I lean towards Mr Johnson — things are going to get much worse before they get any better.

My “Apocalypse Deferred” City source sees big trouble ahead. Any “green shoots” risk turning sickly yellow under the pall of national debt.

“The IMF is right,” he says. “The UK economy is in trouble and to suggest America is to blame is just daft.

“We are borrowing massively, printing money. We have a higher household debt ratio than America and rely more than anyone else on financial services, which are in trouble.

“As a result, Sterling is a risky currency.

“Big investors looking for safe havens for their clients’ billions are worried about the Pound. If they switch to another currency, Britain is in trouble.

“There is a 25-per-cent chance of a run on the Pound in the next six months. That’s a shockingly high probability.”

Some optimists say America will start recovering next year — but not debt-laden Britain.

After his G20 triumph, the Prime Minister will be pleased by a three-per-cent bounce in share prices — and in Labour’s poll ratings.

He will also welcome dodgy claims that house prices are rising again. All three are likely to be “blips”.

Indeed, the Halifax have already trashed the evidence of a housing revival, with figures showing a 1.9 per cent FALL in prices last month.

In a remarkable outburst of candour, Chancellor Alistair Darling blames predecessor Gordon Brown for castrating the watchdogs who might have saved our banks.

Now, on the eve of this month’s crucial Budget, he warns we are nowhere near recovery.

“It’s worse than we thought,” he says.

Mr Darling says the economy will shrink in its worst performance since World War II. Unemployment will keep soaring — perhaps even doubling to 4million.

Asked if there was any reason for cheer, the Chancellor confessed: “There is some way to go yet.

“We have to be realistic. You cannot — you must not — build up false hope.”

This bleak scenario is a million miles from the PM’s beaming optimism.

As the G20 packed up, he claimed a “new world order”, backed by a mythical trillion dollars in spending money. Don’t believe it. As Chancellor, Gordon Brown was famous for his thimble-and-pea tricks.

As in so many of his smoke-and-mirror budgets, these numbers simply don’t add up.

FRANCE and Germany were pleased with their G20 pincer attack on the “Anglo-Saxon economies” – Britain and America.

Pint-sized egotist Nicolas Sarkozy resents popular Barack Obama almost as much as he does First Lady Michelle for eclipsing his wife Carla Bruni.

America will ignore him. But he and Germany’s Angela Merkel have forced concessions out of Britain on the way we do business.

In return for his “triumph” last week, just how many economic levers has Mr Brown surrendered to Brussels?

Source: TREVOR KAVANAGH

Brown's illusory G20 deal

Britain has as its Prime Minister a master of political illusion. He may not be much of an orator, but there is no one better at dressing up old money as new. If the G20 nations wanted to fake progress, to spin a $1.1 trillion figure while committing no new money at all, then Gordon Brown is their man. “This is the day that the world came together to fight the global recession, not with words but with a plan,” said our Dear Leader. Well, let’s have a closer look at this supposed plan…

1) “Making available an extra $1 trillion”. Ahh, those Brown verbal tricks. What does “make available” mean? Is it guarantees, promises, statement of intent? Real spending? Not a penny of cold hard cash has been pledged by anyone. The sum is concocted by taking the IMF’s pre-existing $500bn target for its bailout fund (a target it still hasn’t met), adding another $250bn to the target. And, then, we add a $250bn fund which the IMF would create by printing its own special money.

2) IMF Funds “treble to $750 billion”. Very fishy. We heard from the IMF on Valentine’s Day that it wanted double its rescue fund to $500 billion – then it said it wanted even more. So where has the extra $250bn come from? Who has stumped it up? No one, it appears - it's just a target. And then the IMF will print its own money, in its own pretend “currency” (called Special Drawing Rights or SDR), and then allow its members to swap this for real money. The idea was once rejected by US Congress, but Obama thinks he won’t need congressional approval now the limit is kept to $250bn. But to be clear: no one has stumped up any new cash. It’s a little quantitative easing for the world – aimed, I suspect, at Eastern Europe. China will be happy as it wants SDRs to replaced the US dollar as a reserve currency.

3) Old pledges dressed as new. Brown gave a breakdown of who had stumped up: Japan, he said, contributed $100bn to the IMF. Yes it did: in January. The EU has agreed to contribute $100bn, he added. We know: this was announced at the last EU summit. Brown said China has chipped in just $40bn, and this appears to be new. But given the size of Beijing’s $2 trillion piggy bank, that is a rather derisory amount (and won’t buy it a seat on the IMF board). The Brazilians had thought China was good for $100bn.

4) Double counting. The Dear Leader has good news. “We are going to act decisively to kickstart international trade” But how? “We will ensure availability of at least $250 billion over the next two years." Note that “over two years” means that this is $125bn, double counted. Why not make it four years, and whack up an extra $1 trillion? It’s just a joke. Nor is this real cash – it comes from trade insurance schemes to protect importers and exporters. It’s not money being spent by governments. Pure Brown-style fiscal conjuring.

5) Tax havens. “We have agreed there will be an end to tax havens that do not transfer secrecy on request.” This is a piggybacking on the long-running OECD campaign against tax havens – this is not a G20 initiative. Brown solemnly announced the OECD would publish a list of non-compliant nations, as if this were a breakthrough. It has been doing this for the last year – here is a list of the most recent such announcements.

6) “The Washington consensus is over”. A curious aside from Brown – and a dog whistle to the Soros/Naomi Klein school of economics. The so-called “Washington Consensus” doesn’t refer to any formal economic protocol. It is used by the likes of Soros to denote what he calls ‘free market fundamentalism’. The academic who coined the term talks about its abuse here.

7) Ban on new trade barriers. Yeah, right. They agreed this in November and, since then, 17 of the 20 countries have increased trade barriers.

8) Brown’s gold advice: “I’ve been proposing this to the IMF for ten years”. He was certainly proposing in 1999 that the IMF sold gold – then priced at $278 an ounce. Luckily, the IMF ignored Brown and gold is now $890 an ounce. Shame he didn’t take the IMF’s advice when it was warning his borrowing would end in tears.

9) “For the first time, we have come together to set principles for the global finance system.” As far as I can determine, all they have agreed is that banks and hedge funds should be regulated – but don’t say how. Ergo, it’s meaningless.

10) No fiscal stimulus. It’s mentioned twice in the 3,080 word document – there wasn’t one. Both Brown and Obama wanted the world to contribute new money. They failed. There was none of the big agreement that Brown led us to believe. There was a split, as evidenced by the Franco-German minority report yesterday. But still it’s a big summit, a deal was done (albeit a fairly nebulous one) and the threatre was fine.

On a presentational basis, this his has worked out well for Brown. I suspect the G20 will be written up well tomorrow, just as his Budgets are always written up well – “2p tax reduction!” – before we all realise we’ve been swindled. So look out for triumphant declarations of “$1.1 trillion to save the world” in tomorrow’s papers. Listening to Brown today, it was as if he were giving a Budget for the world. And I suspect the world is about to learn how illusory a Brown promise.

Source: Fraser Nelson @ Spectator

Max Keiser on Radio 5 Live

Max Keiser discusses the fall out of the G20 meeting in London

G20 Outcome

More smoke and mirrors - this time from the G20 and what difference will this make for the people who are struggling all over the UK.

At least we can rest easy in the fact that there is extra money over at the IMF for the UK when we need to go calling!

All we saw yesterday was a final communiqué which was big on promises but very short on specifics. One example is the new regulation. I agree with regulation for these hedge funds which are raping the world but we didn't hear any details out of the G20 as to how exactly this is going to happen.

Gordon Brown is still banging on about how they are making a difference and offering "real help" to small businesses and people struggling with mortgages. Can someone tell me where all of this help is???

I'm a small business owner myself and in the past 6 months new clients have been non-existent. So far we have been lucky enough that our existing customer base has been stable. If one of our customers should take a turn and go down we will be going down right behind them. Crash has been harping on for 6 months about help for small business and I can say right here and now that on April 3rd, 2009 there is absolutely nothing out there for us. If anything our experience has been they put more brick walls in front of you rather than really helping a small business grow.

I read the papers and follow the news daily. I`ve yet to see a single person or small business owner on the TV or in an interview in a paper or on the internet who has said that they have actually been helped out in this crisis by these so called Govt policies. On the other hand, I have seen many who have lost their homes or businesses and said that the banks or govt offered nothing at all.

I'm not saying the Govt should be in the business of bailing out small businesses but will Brown and his ministers please stop harping on with cheap sound bites about help that is just not there. Say what you mean and mean what you say. How can we put any faith in any of these people at this stage and take them as genuine while they`re loading up on expenses claims. The Govt need to stop insulting our intelligence.

Soros Calls The G20 A Success

Geore Soros, for one, is happy with how the G20 turned out. The hedge fund manager spoke to Maria Bartiromo at the conclusion, lauding the news that the IMF would create $750 billion in special drawing rights. He says this will save countries on their own.

Full transcript:

MARIA BARTIROMO: THE G-20 SUMMIT WINDING DOWN AND NEW PROMISES HAVE BEEN MADE TO DRAMATICALLY INCREASE SPENDING IN EMERGING ECONOMIES. IT IS ONE OF THE TOP CONCERNS OF BILLIONAIRE INVESTOR GEORGE SOROS. HE'S JUST RELEASED HIS BOOK "THE CRASH OF 2008 AND WHAT IT MEANS." IN A FIRST ON CNBC INTERVIEW TODAY I SPOKE WITH HIM ABOUT THE IMF'S ROLE IN HELPING THE POOREST COUNTRIES. [to Soros] YOU'VE SEEN THE COMMUNIQUÉ. YOU'VE BEEN IN SOME OF THESE MEETINGS. WHAT'S YOUR REACTION? WHAT DID YOU THINK ABOUT THE COMMUNIQUÉ?

GEORGE SOROS: THEY MANAGED TO GET MORE THAN I EXPECTED. THEY REALLY PULLED A FEW RABBITS OUT OF THE HAT, AND I THINK IT WAS A VERY IMPRESSIVE COMMUNIQUÉ, AND I THINK GORDON BROWN, IT'S REALLY PROBABLY HIS FINEST HOUR.

BARTIROMO: WHY?

SOROS: BECAUSE HE REALLY DID SEE THE NEED FOR ADDRESSING THIS GLOBAL PROBLEM. BECAUSE YOU HAVE THE LESS DEVELOPED WORLD FACING A POTENTIAL COLLAPSE AS THE BANKS DON'T ROLL OVER THEIR LOANS. SO SOMETHING HAD TO BE DONE. AND HE DID MANAGE TO BRING IT TOGETHER. AND I WOULD SAY THAT IT'S PROBABLY THE FIRST TIME THAT THE AUTHORITIES ARE ACTUALLY AHEAD OF THE CURVE.

BARTIROMO: LET'S TALK ABOUT THE MONEY FOR THE IMF. IT COULD RISE TO $750 BILLION. IS THAT ENOUGH? AND MORE IMPORTANTLY, WHO SHOULD GET THE MONEY?

SOROS: WELL, THEY MANAGED TO PUT TOGETHER A BIGGER PACKAGE THAN ANYBODY EXPECTED. AND VERY IMPORTANT IS THE ISSUE OF SPECIAL DRAWING RIGHTS. $250 BILLION. THAT IS EFFECTIVELY CREATING - INTERNATIONALLY CREATING - NEW MONEY. AND THAT WILL HELP TO ALLOW THE COUNTRIES THAT ARE NOT ABLE TO PRINT THEIR OWN MONEY THE WAY WE CAN, ACTUALLY TO STIMULATE THEIR ECONOMIES. AND I THINK THE WAY FOR THE RICH COUNTRIES TO TRANSFER THE ALLOCATIONS TO THE MOST NEEDY COUNTRIES CAN BE WORKED OUT.

BARTIROMO: SO ARE YOU SAYING THE EFFORTS AS FAR AS THE IMF AND THE COMMUNIQUÉ OVERALL HAVE COMPLETELY CHANGED YOUR MIND? A WEEK AND A HALF AGO YOU WERE OUT VERY VOCAL SAYING LOOK, THE IMF IS GOING TO HAVE TO BASICALLY BAIL OUT THE UK, HERE WE ARE SITTING IN ONE OF THE GREATEST CITIES IN THE WORLD -

SOROS: NO. THAT WAS A MISLEADING HEADLINE GIVEN TO AN INTERVIEW WHERE I SAID IT'S MOST UNLIKELY THAT BRITAIN WOULD NEED TO GO TO THE IMF. HOWEVER, THE FACT THAT WE CREATED SUCH AN OUTCRY SHOWS WHAT A STIGMA THERE IS ATTACHED TO HAVING TO GO TO THE IMF.

BARTIROMO: A LOT OF PEOPLE WHEN YOU WERE TALKING ABOUT THE UK AND THE NEED FOR HELP AND REALLY A BAILOUT, PEOPLE WERE SAYING, WELL, WAIT A SECOND, GEORGE SOROS YEARS AGO SHORTED THE POUND AND MADE MONEY ON THIS AND MAYBE HE'S PLAYING HIS BOOK. IN FACT, LORD MANDELSON SAID THAT. ARE YOU SHORTING THE POUND RIGHT NOW?

SOROS: NO, I'M NOT. FIRST OF ALL, AGAIN, I'VE WITHDRAWN NOW FROM ACTUALLY RUNNING THE FUND. I DID IT LAST YEAR. WE CAME THROUGH IT. NOW I'VE HANDED IT BACK TO THE PEOPLE WHO CAN DO IT. SO I'M OUT OF THE MARKETS, AS I WAS BEFORE I CAME OUT OF RETIREMENT. SO I'M BACK IN RETIREMENT.

BARTIROMO: I DON'T KNOW IF YOU'RE GOING TO BE ABLE TO STAY IN RETIREMENT VERY LONG, FRANKLY. BUT LET ME ASK YOU ABOUT THE OPERATIONS IN TERMS OF HEDGE FUNDS OVERSIGHT. BECAUSE THIS IS ANOTHER THING THE GROUP SAID, THAT THEY WANT MORE REGULATION ON HEDGE FUNDS. DID YOU AGREE WITH WHAT THEY SAID AND WHERE THEY'RE GOING IN TERMS OF MORE OVERSIGHT?

SOROS: WELL, I THINK YOU ABSOLUTELY WILL NEED MORE REGULATION. BUT YOU REALLY NEED TO HAVE BETTER REGULATION. AND YES, WE HAVE ALLOWED THE MARKETS A FREE HAND, AND OF COURSE THAT WAS VERY UNSOUND. BUT WE DON'T WANT TO GO OVERBOARD NOW WITH REGULATIONS BECAUSE THE FACT THAT MARKETS ARE IMPERFECT, THAT THEY DON'T ANTICIPATE THE FUTURE CORRECTLY, REGULATORS ARE JUST AS IMPERFECT.

BARTIROMO: CAN YOU CHARACTERIZE THE SITUATION FOR US IN EASTERN EUROPE RIGHT NOW?

SOROS: WHAT HAPPENED WHEN THE WESTERN EUROPE AND AMERICA GUARANTEED THE BANKING SYSTEM THE OTHER COUNTRIES IN EASTERN EUROPE COULDN'T PROVIDE SIMILARLY CONVINCING GUARANTEES, AND THE BANKS IN THE WEST STARTED PULLING THEIR CAPITAL OUT OF THERE AND PULLING THEM BACK. AND THE NATIONAL REGULATORS ALSO ENCOURAGED THE BANKS TO LEND AT HOME AND NOT ABROAD. AND SO THAT CREATED A CRISIS FOR EASTERN EUROPE.

BARTIROMO: WHAT ARE YOUR THOUGHTS ON THE DEVELOPMENTS SURROUNDING MARK TO MARKET? FASBY COMING OUT AND SAYING THAT THEY DO WANT TO MAKE IT EASIER, A LITTLE MORE LAX IN TERMS OF THE REGULATION FOR MARK TO MARKET. WHAT ARE YOUR THOUGHTS ON THAT?

SOROS: THERE I REMAIN REALLY CRITICAL BECAUSE I THINK MUCH MORE EFFECTIVE WOULD HAVE BEEN TO RECAPITALIZE THE BANKS. AND BECAUSE OF THE HISTORY OF THE WAY THE TARP MONEY WAS SPENT, IT WAS REALLY VERY MESSY AND VERY BADLY DONE. AND BECAUSE OF THAT THERE'S INCREASING RELUCTANCE BY CONGRESS TO MAKE NEW MONEY AVAILABLE. AND YET IT WOULD BE MUCH MUCH BETTER TO CREATE CLEAN BANKS. BANKS THAT ARE ABLE TO LEND. AND I THINK WE MISSED THE BOAT ON THAT. AND THAT MEANS THAT WE WILL BE SPENDING A LONG TIME ALLOWING THE BANKS TO DIG THEMSELVES OUT OF A HOLE. AND WHILE THEY ARE DOING THAT, THEY WILL NOT BE REALLY PROVIDING SUFFICIENT CREDIT TO CARRY ON BUSINESS. THEY WILL BE CHARGING A LOT AND GENERALLY IT'S GOING TO WEIGH ON OUR ECONOMY FOR A PERIOD OF TIME.

BARTIROMO: I KNOW YOU SAW THE STORY ABOUT SOME HEDGE FUNDS SAYING, "LOOK, WE'RE GOING TO LEAVE LONDON. THE TAX SITUATION IS NOT FAVORABLE. WE DON'T LIKE THE BUSINESS CONDITIONS HERE. WHAT DO YOU THINK ABOUT THAT?

SOROS: WHERE ARE THEY GOING TO GO? ANOTHER PLANET? I MEAN, YOU KNOW, THIS IS - THERE IS NO ALTERNATIVE BECAUSE NOW WITH THE TAX HAVENS BEING BROUGHT UNDER CONTROL I THINK HEDGE FUNDS WILL HAVE TO GET USED TO BEING REGULATED.

BARTIROMO: GEORGE IS THERE ANYWHERE IN THE WORLD DOING WELL RIGHT NOW? I MEAN ANYWHERE THAT YOU WOULD SAY, LOOK, THIS IS SAFETY, THIS IS WHERE I WANT TO BE?

SOROS: I THINK THAT ACTUALLY CHINA STANDS TO EMERGE FASTER AND BETTER THAN MOST OTHER COUNTRIES. I THINK, ACTUALLY, BRAZIL THAT HAS BEEN HURT BY THIS FINANCIAL CRISIS AFTER LEHMAN IS ALSO BASICALLY QUITE WELL SITUATED. SO I THINK INDIA, BECAUSE IT IS LESS TIED IN WITH THE REST OF THE WORLD. SO I THINK THAT THE GLOBAL ECONOMY WILL PROBABLY START GROWING NEXT YEAR.

BARTIROMO: GEORGE, THE CHINESE SAID THAT THERE SHOULD BE ANOTHER OPTION AWAY FROM THE U.S. DOLLAR AS THE RESERVE CURRENCY. DO YOU AGREE WITH THAT?

SOROS: IN THE LONG RUN THAT MAY BE APPROPRIATE. IT'S NOT IN THE CARDS NOW. THE SPECIAL DRAWING RIGHTS THAT ARE NOW BEING ISSUED, THOSE ARE NOT CURRENCY. THEY'RE IN A BOOKKEEPING ENTRY AT THE IMF. YOU HAVE TO CONVERT THEM INTO A CONVERTIBLE CURRENCY BEFORE YOU CAN USE THEM. I THINK PROBABLY THE CHINESE YUAN WILL ALSO BE MADE ONE OF THE CURRENCIES INTO WHICH YOU CAN CONVERT IT. WHICH IS APPROPRIATE BECAUSE CHINA IS NOW VERY IMPORTANT COUNTRY. BUT WE ARE NOWHERE NEAR THE SDRs BECOMING AN INTERNATIONAL CURRENCY.

BARTIROMO: LONG TERM WHAT WOULD THE CURRENCY BE? WOULD IT BE THE CHINESE YUAN?

SOROS: NO. I THINK THE DOLLAR IS THE DOMINANT CURRENCY FOR A WHILE TO COME. BUT IN THE LONG RUN I THINK IT WOULD BE IMPORTANT THAT THE U.S. SHOULD BE SUBJECT TO THE SAME DISCIPLINE AS THE REST OF THE WORLD.

BARTIROMO: MY THANKS TO GEORGE SOROS.

G20 Summit : George Soros says its success hovers on a 'knife edge'

George Soros said the success of the G20 meeting was "hovering on a knife edge between success and failure" and would depend on a pledge to increase the global money supply to help poor countries.

In a speech at the London School of Economics, the billionaire investor said the G20 should create about $250bn of the International Monetary Fund's Special Drawing Rates – international reserve assets which can be exchanged for major currencies – to make an impact. IMF member countries are allocated SDRs in proportion to their IMF quotas.

"Rich countries that are able to print their own money and provide guarantees should re-allocate their allocations to the most vulnerable countries. It boils down to the international creation of money," Mr Soros said.

"It would be a tremendous accomplishment for the G20, a practical achievement to move the world forward. The principle of doing it and endorsement from the G20 leaders would be the most one could expect [from the summit meeting]."

Leaders of the G20 meet in London tomorrow with the global economy facing what the OECD described yesterday as the “deepest and most synchronised recession in our lifetimes”

G20: SARKOZY, "FRANCE AND GERMANY UNSATISFIED''

France and Germany are not pleased yet with the draft formulated in view of tomorrow's G20, said French President Nicolas Sarkozy. He explained that ''France nor Germany are pleased with the proposal''. France has asked for stricter rules for global finance, against tax havens in particular. ''I dissociate from a meeting'' he said ''which leads to false compromises without dealing with the real problems we have''.

Max Keiser on 5 Live with Rachel Burden ; G20 meeting

Max Keiser discusses the upcoming G20 and the implications for us in the UK should they agreee on creating a global "Bad Bank".

Will Global Quantitative Credit Easing Work?

New fears as credit markets tighten

“The credit markets are seizing up again amid new anxieties about the global financial system.“The fear and uncertainty that sent stocks to 12-year lows is now roiling the market for corporate bonds and loans, which have given back much of the gains they chalked up earlier in the year.

“Short-term credit markets are still performing better than they did last year thanks to government programs to buy commercial paper and guarantee short-term debt. But Libor, the London interbank offered rate, a common benchmark interest rate, has crept up over the past weeks, from 1.1% in mid-January to 1.3% on Friday, reflecting banks' concerns about being paid back for even short-term loans. It is still well below its peak of 4.8% last October.

“This time around, the economy is slipping deeper into a recession, and bond investors worry the government's repeated modifications to its financial-rescue packages are undermining the very foundations of bond investing: the right of creditors to claim their assets first if a borrower defaults. Without this assurance, bonds of even the most stalwart institutions are much riskier to own.

“After what seemed like the beginning of a thawing of debt markets early in the year, sentiment has deteriorated, analysts say. The markets remain open only to the strongest companies. A rally in US Treasury bonds last week reflects another bout of flight-to-quality buying. Junk bonds now yield 19 percentage points more than safe Treasury bonds, up from a 16-point spread in February, according to Merrill Lynch. The spread is still narrower than the 21-percentage-point premium reached last December, but any widening shows investors are becoming more fearful.

“Part of the problem is that investors are still waiting for key details from the government about its plans to bolster US banks and unfreeze the credit markets. After launching a $1 trillion program to kick-start consumer lending last week, the Obama administration is considering creating multiple investment funds to purchase bad loans and other distressed assets. The intent of the funds is to stabilize the prices of good assets and restore investor confidence.

“Without more clarity from the government on its bailout plans, the market could continue to drop, say analysts. That would further harm the economy and the institutions the government hopes to help, compounding its task of shoring up the financial system.”

Source: Wall Street Journal

Can Brown Afford to “hang” with Obama?

For the Prime Minister, yesterday`s comments from President Obama in Washington may be a case of Be careful what you wish for! President Obama stated that countries must take concerted action to revive the global economy and spur on new economic growth. Prior to his trip to the US last week, these are the kind of comments that Gordon Brown had been eager to hear from the US President.

The question Brown now faces, as he heads into the upcoming G20 meeting in April, is can the UK actually afford to take a leading role alongside Obama. As Brown headed to Washington he must have relished the opportunity to be seen by the world as Obama`s partner in saving the global economy! Brown and his top advisors must have thought this would be their ticket to a bump in the polls which would spur the PM and Labour onto a great election victory next year.

The hitch in this plan is that Obama believes the way to save the global economy is to spend, spend, spend – and then spend some more! For us in the UK the cupboard is already bare. Yesterday Alistair Darling started to lay the ground work to prepare us for next month’s budget. Darling signalled that we would not be seeing any new fiscal stimulus plans in the budget and called for restraint. Restraint is something that is in very short supply in Washington these days. On the day that President Obama signed another $420 billion of new spending in law - and before the ink had even dried - there was already talk in Congress of Stimulus 2.0.

This lays the backdrop for the coming G20 amid growing reports of a rift between the US and Europe. There`s no doubt that Brown wants to “hang” with Obama and the cool kids but in the end his pockets will just not be deep enough.