The nomadic life

The report also showed that digital nomads are among the most satisfied in the workforce. Instead of working in a cubicle from nine to five, a digital nomad enjoys freedom, flexibility and autonomy with work both in terms of location and hours, and therefore a better work-life balance. They can also take advantage of geoarbitrage, that is to work in a country with lower cost of living while maintaining the income level of their home country. Popular destinations include Portugal and Thailand, and countries such as Spain, Argentina and Romania are ranked best suited for digital nomads to be in in terms of the cost of living, minimum income and internet speed.

Today, around 50 countries issue a 'digital nomad visa', a temporary visa that allows individuals to live and work legally in that country. The requirements range from having an overseas employer, to demonstrating knowledge of, or qualifications in the relevant discipline with a university degree or relevant work experience.

Legal implications

There are, nonetheless, legal implications digital nomads and their employers ought to be aware of. One such implication would be on tax. For digital nomads, they may become a tax resident in a country that they spend more than 183 days per calendar year in, after which their worldwide income will be taxed in the country they are working. It is therefore possible for them to be taxed in both the country they are based and their home country if a double tax treaty does not exist between the two countries.

As for businesses, they may be deemed to be a resident of the country in which their nomadic employee is based and therefore considered a corporate presence. As such, the business can then be considered as operating from that country too and be subject to corporate tax obligations.

Double liability can also be an issue which applies to digital nomads' social security contributions. Without a social security agreement between their home country and the country they choose to work remotely from, digital nomads may cause a double charge for social security contributions from both themselves personally and their employers. 

Nomadic employees

There are also employment considerations. Digital nomads should pay close attention to the terms of their health insurance or employee life assurance policies provided by their employer, as working from a location other than the one specified in their employment contract could potentially void these policies. For employers, they should note that the governing law which applies to their nomadic employees is usually that of the country in which their employee is currently residing. Employers should pay attention to, for example, minimum wage and holidays stipulated by local laws where their nomadic employee is based and which could override the terms of their employment contract.

Data risks

Last but not least, businesses may face data privacy risks and ought to pay attention to local laws regarding the transfer of data, especially when it comes to client information, and implement the measures required to safeguard this information. Digital nomads should adhere to such measures if available, and take steps to protect any sensitive information they are handling. For instance, they should avoid using public Wi-Fi where cybercriminals can easily eavesdrop. They are also recommended to set up a Virtual Private Network (VPN) to encrypt their data and secure their internet connection.

The life of a digital nomad isn't all rainbows and luxury and there are certainly hurdles to jump to make it work. Nonetheless, it is not impossible. If you are eager to set on an adventure and meet new people every day while maintaining your career and having regular income, digital nomadism may be the way.

Below, the RPC Trainees are back with their predictions for the year ahead. 2024 is set to be filled with many international events, from the Paris Olympics to several high stakes elections. The Trainees give their thoughts on how businesses will fare in light of rising operating costs, generative AI shifting into practical use, and how environmental concerns will factor into many decisions in 2024.

Business

At the time of publishing the Trainee's take on 2023, we predicted that interest rates had peaked (at 4%). Sadly, this was optimistic, with interest rates sitting at 5.25% at the end of 2023. However, it is likely (and we mean it this time) that interest rates will fall in 2024 – with projections suggesting a possible fall to around 2.5% by the second half of the year. In practical terms, this makes borrowing cheaper, which tends to encourage consumer spending and business investment. 

Interest rates are not the only factor affecting business and the economy. Rising operating costs caused a 40% increase in business insolvencies in the first half of 2023. Construction and retail were the hardest hit, while high street shops have weathered the combination of high business rates, low consumer confidence, and lower footfall. These issues are likely to carry into 2024. Further, 2023 saw an increase in the price of goods and services (caused by, among other factors, Brexit, global recovery from the pandemic, and the war in Ukraine), with a particularly sharp increase in the cost of food and energy prices. Growing inflation caused a rise in employee wages – adding to the existing pressures on businesses to cut costs to make ends meet.

However, we don't think it's all doom and gloom: the UK avoided a recession in 2023, inflation is due to fall, and wage growth is set to slow down. This may cause a drop in services inflation (ie the cost of living), and overall, RPC Trainees hope to see some modest economic growth in 2024. 

Entertainment

Lights! Cameras! (Strike) Action!

2023 saw industrial action from by actors and writers, effectively shuttering Hollywood over several months. This curtailed studios' ability to produce and promote, which may have a knock-on effect on the volume of releases in 2024. However, some studios and indie projects were still able to keep cameras rolling throughout the shutdown by demonstrating their independence from the Alliance of Motion Picture and Television Producers. The Trainees predict that 2024 will be a challenging year for many production companies but we could see breakout hits for smaller, indie productions.

Content goes global

Audience interest in foreign-language content appears to be on the rise, particularly among English-speaking countries. Streaming giants have certainly seen success with Korean content, and 2024 looks set to hold further cultural highlights from the land of the morning calm. The Trainees expect that foreign-language film and music will continue to grow steadily, maintaining a cycle of cultural imports and exports across the globe.

Music moves

Taylor Swift has reportedly already broken the $1bn mark with her three-hour run-time Eras Tour while Beyonce's Renaissance World Tour had critics on mute. Both artists also produced sleek concert movies on top of touring, giving fans access to the concert experience in cinemas and from the comfort of their own homes. These concerts have broken barriers and created blueprints for other artists to follow.

With Swift's Eras tour continuing and other pop sensations set to hit the stage, we think that 2024 will continue the trend of big-budget concerts and accompanying cinema releases.

Sport

A busy sporting calendar awaits. After a disappointing summer, England's men's cricket team will be hoping to re-find their form ahead of their title defence at the T20 World Cup, the Three Lions will be looking to follow in the Lionesses' footsteps with victory at the Euros, and Wembley will play host to the UEFA Champions League and Challenge Cup finals.

Paris awaits

Undoubtedly, the biggest sporting event of the year will be the Paris Olympic and Paralympic Games. The Parisian economy will be the biggest winner of the Games, with sponsors, including LVMH and EDF, also hoping to capitalise on their investment into the games. The Trainees predict that the Paris Games will also be an opportunity for the next wave of influencer-athletes to emerge onto the world stage, creating more Olympic and Paralympic social media content than ever before.

Women’s sport

We expect the rise of women's sport to continue in 2024. It is anticipated that, for the first time ever, women's elite sport will generate over $1 billion in revenue, and there will be a continued increase in media coverage of women's sport. The Paris Games also promise to be the first Olympic and Paralympic Games with gender parity in terms of the number of participants.

Green games

The environment will also continue to be an important topic in the sport sector. Paris 2024 promises to be the "greenest games" yet. The organising committee has made ambitious plans to host a carbon neutral, zero waste and zero single-use plastic event. While this is a positive step, spectators and athletes will travel from across the world to the event and so the true success of this environmental strategy remains to be seen.

Technology

Mainstream AI

2023 was an explosive year for technology with Generative AI ("GenAI") in particular receiving significant investment. Tools such as ChatGPT and Bard burst into the mainstream, winding their way into everyday conversation. The Trainees believe 2024 will see GenAI scale from creative ideas into real-world, practical applications. As companies put GenAI tools to work they will also stand to benefit from using more data from a greater variety of sources and in more flexible ways. Whether shopping online or controlling smart homes, the Trainees believe that next-gen voice assistants are likely to become more effective at replicating human conversation.

As AI capability is harnessed, greater attention may also turn to the problems it poses. Debate rages on about the ethical implications for job safety, increasingly sophisticated cyber-attacks may cause companies to put a renewed emphasis on training staff and boosting businesses' in-house security. Businesses' policies on AI may also need to be standardised to prevent piecemeal adoption of new technologies by individual employees. Conversely, technology will likely form a key part of cyber risks, creating an uptake in phishing attacks as criminals rely on social engineering to exploit vulnerabilities that human interaction allows.

Further predictions

Not wanting to leave you short-chAInged, we offer three final predictions:

• Drone deliveries will start to become commonplace, impacting retailers, logistics platforms and medical centres alike.
• The benefits of quantum computing will begin to become apparent in compute-heavy fields such as drug discovery, the exploration of new material sciences and financial services.
• And finally, in a year full of democratic elections across the globe, deepfakes will flood the internet causing confusion and creating (even more) questionable recordings of politicians.

Legal in England & Wales

AI in law

There is no doubt that AI will continue to dominate the legal headlines in 2024, with law firms cautiously keen to adopt AI technologies to improve efficiencies in a challenging economic climate. The recent SRA Risk Outlook Report addressed the advantages and risks of the technology for the legal sector and noted that guidance will be produced on specific issues as and when they arise. 2024 may be the year in which the parameters for using AI in a legal context are set. 

Cyclical opportunities

Gloomy economic and turbulent political forecasts for 2024 may not be all bad news for law firms, with certain practice areas set to benefit. Take restructuring and insolvency, for instance, which has seen a growing demand for legal services as a result of record company insolvencies over the last two years. There is every reason to believe this trend may continue into 2024 and beyond.

Face-to-face return

It was said that the COVID-19 "Zoom revolution" had changed the nature of the lawyer/client relationship forever. However, the Trainees are hearing not so quiet whispers that face-to-face meetings are back on clients' agendas. Whether this is the result of video call fatigue or a desire for the return of pre-pandemic facetime (or a combination of both) is unknown, but the Trainees welcome the prospect of face-to-face client contact.

Politics

Following the chaotic end to 2022, 2023 at least saw the return to some stability as there was only one Prime Minister in office throughout the whole year. There was still, nonetheless, plenty of industrial unrest with one Trainee's prediction from last year about strikes lasting well into the summer ringing true.

Election predictions

However, RPC Trainees predict that this is likely to take a drastic change this year in light of confirmation that a UK general election will take place in 2024. The election, including the six-week campaigning period, will undoubtedly be the political focus of the year. If the final result reflects the current position in opinion polls and the outcome of last year's local elections, most of the Trainees predict a new Prime Minister from a new party to take office.

There will also be continued political pressure on whoever succeeds in the 2024 UK general election to grow and boost the UK economy following its sluggish growth and record-high interest rates. A leader from a new party will certainly have a different economic outlook but we will have to wait and see whether that will result in drastic economic reform. One Trainee is predicting that this could result in tax increases for many middle-income workers, but most are predicting that any leader will exercise caution, at least for 2024, before introducing any sweeping reforms.

Global challenges

On the international stage, the continuing of conflicts in Europe and the Middle East is likely to put diplomacy and foreign policy at centre stage with the Trainees agreeing that the UK is likely to play a continued important role in reaching a solution to these conflicts, if one can be reached.

Environment

The Trainees expect 2024 to be a crucial year for the environment and climate change. Environmental protests have been increasing in frequency and intensity, demanding more ambitious and urgent policies from governments and corporations regarding deforestation, fossil fuel subsidies, plastic pollution, and biodiversity loss.

Affordable renewables

The cost of renewable energy sources such as solar, wind, and hydro have been decreasing, alongside their ongoing improvements in efficiency and reliability. Clean energy is also growing as a source of innovation, job creation, and economic growth. Many countries have set targets to increase their share of clean energy in their electricity mix, with some pledging to achieve net-zero emissions by 2050 or sooner. Nuclear power, on the other hand, will face challenges and opportunities, as some countries plan to phase out their reactors while others invest in new technologies and fuels.

The end of 'forever chemicals'?

In other news, 2023 saw gaining traction around the banning of polyfluoroalkyl substances ("PFAs") also known as "forever chemicals". PFAs are chemicals which do not degrade over time and so are useful in products such as medical devices. However, this means that they accumulate in the environment and can now be found "in penguins in the Antarctic, in polar bears in the Artic, even in the rainwater in Tibet". In February 2023, five EU member-states submitted a proposal to ban over 10,000 PFAs. In April 203 the Health and Safety Executive (HSE) published the results of an assessment of the use of PFAs in the UK and its recommendation to ban hundreds of PFAs. Entering 2024, RPC Trainees predict regulatory reforms around PFAs and the first wave of bans, with fire-fighting foam as the first product likely to be targeted. 

It's hard to disagree, with UK legal services increasing by almost half a billion in 2021. However, when exploring the Commercial Court's history, it becomes apparent that this hasn't always been the case. So how did London establish itself as a hub for commercial litigation, and how can it retain this reputation?

The father of commercial law

The modern commercial dispute resolution procedure can largely trace its lineage back to Lord Mansfield who, in the 18th century, held some novel ideas on how to run a case. Some of his unique practices included:

• Drawing local merchants with specialist knowledge into juries to advise on the more commercial aspects of a case;
• Providing judgments almost immediately after hearing submissions from the parties; and
• Generally streamlining the court process to encourage more efficient proceedings - he was even known to start reading the newspapers if counsel was being repetitive!

Consequently, the English courts attracted a growing number of commercial cases through offering an efficient, knowledgeable procedure whilst developing a consistent legal framework. 

However, Lord Mansfield's death saw the judiciary largely return to its old ways. Cases were taking longer to determine, and judges were taking months to provide very lengthy decisions. By the early 1800s, case waiting lists took up to two and a half years to reach trial. 

Lord Mansfield's innovations were revitalised with the creation of the Notices as to Commercial Cases in 1894. This specialist list led by J.C. Mathew provided an avenue whereby parties could have their cases heard by an expert commercial judge within a framework designed for speed and efficiency, without being at the expense of fairness and justice (Mathew's judgments were often only half a page and rarely longer than five).

The Commercial Court today

The Commercial Court has learnt its lessons from the days of Lord Mansfield. With 75% of cases in the Commercial Court including at least one international litigant, today clients from across the globe come to London for their commercial disputes. The reasons for this include:

• With 13 specialised commercial judges, cases are heard by individuals with considerable expertise and knowledge in commercial dealings;
• The long-established history of English commercial law means judges apply well-developed laws which offer consistency for future disputes; and
• Proactive case management powers given to judges mean pragmatic, common sense and commercially appropriate solutions are considered and recommended at all stages.

All these factors allow clients to expect an efficient and sensible procedure when referring disputes to London. In 2021-2022 the London Commercial Courts gave more judgments than both New York and Singapore commercial courts/divisions, with many of these trials lasting less than a week.

The Commercial Court has also benefited from complementing London's growing arbitration offering. In 2022, 423 London LCIA arbitrators were appointed, more than both Singapore and Hong Kong. Arbitration offers a distinct alternative from court proceedings. Often, a private resolution procedure where parties may choose their arbitrators and enforce decisions through the Commercial Court is preferrable in commercially sensitive circumstances. 

The future of the Commercial Court

London's strong offering of both Commercial Court proceedings and arbitration has allowed it to prosper on the global dispute resolution stage. But to retain its position as "the most attractive centre for commercial litigation and international arbitration", it must ensure the qualities of efficiency and expertise are not lost in the wake of new developments. 

Artificial Intelligence is an expected game-changer within the coming years, and commercial judges will need to grapple with technically complex cases surrounding this. A continued commitment from parties, legal practitioners, and judges to stay up to date on this area will be important. 

The changing international political landscape may also pose an obstacle to many international cases that come through London's doors. The Commercial Court will need to maintain an open and fair regime, actively removing barriers to cross-border legal services and acting with the same efficiency and speed to ensure decisions are given in a helpful and timely fashion. 

Finally, the Arbitration Bill currently making its way through Parliament will likely be scrutinised carefully to ensure that its changes add value and enhance the qualities which so many international parties value about London arbitration.

Conclusion

London's long history as a centre for international dispute resolution has helped it develop unique qualities important to any commercial party seeking to resolve a dispute. Whether drafting dispute resolution clauses in contracts, preparing pre-action correspondence or issuing court claims, the benefits London offers should be kept in mind by all parties domestically and internationally. 

What are AVODs?

AVODs offer consumers the chance to access must-see TV at a discounted rate in exchange for viewing adverts. While this is not a new phenomenon, with AVODs having existed for many years, major household name SVODs have only recently started to offer ad-funded packages.

The benefits of an ad-funded package

Cheaper ad-supported viewing options may tackle slow subscription growth post-pandemic. Indeed, there is appetite among UK consumers for more budget options, with a recent survey revealing that 44% of those surveyed would choose to watch 12 minutes of adverts per hour if the subscription was free. In a separate piece of research, it was also revealed that 85% of subscribers to two established SVODs' ad-supported packages are new to the platforms. Cheaper viewing options may also help minimise cancellations (known as 'churn'), with viewers choosing to downgrade as opposed to cancelling.

Advertising contracts will also boost platform revenue. Prior to the pandemic, a major US-based AVOD platform reportedly earned US$15 per subscriber each month on its US$6 ad-supported package, due to its advertising contracts. And businesses are keen to get involved. Given the number of hours people stream every day, ad-supported packages generate large amounts of advertising space for businesses to monetise beyond that offered by traditional broadcasting channels. Indeed, one established SVOD platform had reportedly almost filled its advertising space a month before it launched its ad-funded package. In addition to having more space to advertise, targeted TV ads are also believed to impact consumers more than advertising via online videos, and may help advertisers reach younger generations, who consume SVODs more than traditional broadcast TV. 

A return to simpler times?

AVODs will differ from advertising on traditional broadcast TV. Ad-breaks will be shorter, with approximately four to five minutes of adverts per hour of TV consumed. Advertising will be tailored to the individual consumer's interests, with consumers being given choices not only over what adverts to watch, but when. Advertising may be interactive, increasing consumer engagement through the use of QR codes for shopping various goods or ordering essential movie snacks to your door. Through the use of AI, adverts may also be introduced in the context of the episode itself as opposed to in the traditional separate "ad-break". Rather than repeating adverts, adverts may be "episodic", with streaming services showing a series of linked adverts. For example, with car advertising, different parts of the car may be shown in each episode. Alternatively, similar to Zac Efron and Jessica Alba's Dubai Presents tourism mini-series, each episode could follow different family journeys with the car during which various features of the car are showcased.

Key considerations

From a commercial perspective, in certain markets, particularly the UK, AVODs will have to compete with free ad-funded services offered by established television and online broadcasters. There are also legislative compliance issues to consider. Tailored advertising will require platforms to harness subscribers' data. For example, one platform is asking ad-supported package subscribers for their gender and birthday to offer targeted ads. Platforms will need to carefully consider what data they are collecting from subscribers and how they are using it when seeking to create tailored advertising to ensure compliance with applicable data protection legislation. Advertising regulations also need to be considered. For example, if an advert is being introduced in the context of a programme, how will the consumer know it is an advert? As with influencer marketing in the UK, will adverts need to be labelled "#ad?" The Advertising Standards Authority has previously said it will investigate this type of advertising. Platforms will also need to consider what content is suitable to advertise and to whom. This is especially so when advertising in the UK in light of the draft Media Bill, which seeks to regulate SVOD platforms and ensure greater protection for the audience. 

Conclusion

AVODs are gaining popularity amongst both consumers, who can view quality content for less, and platforms, who benefit from increased subscription growth and revenue. For businesses, AVODs represent a major opportunity to advertise products and services, providing a regular direct link to the consumer. It is estimated that the AVOD market will grow to become a US$21 billion industry by 2025, representing a growth of approximately 205% over the next 5 years. And with the scope for additional commercial add-ons with interactive advertising, there is serious scope for more. Watch this (advertising!) space.

This news came against the backdrop of a perceived wider exodus of home-grown UK groups over the past few years, including the recent announcement that CRH, the world's largest supplier of building materials, would also be exiting from the FTSE 100 to list in New York.

The key question then for UK regulatory officials is what can be done to reverse the recent direction of travel for London listings?

What do the numbers say?

According to the UK Listing Review published in 2020, the number of listed companies in the UK has fallen by about 40% from a recent peak in 2008 and between 2015 and 2020 the UK accounted for only 5% (by number) of initial public offerings (IPOs) globally.

Indeed, as of March 2023, a total of 1,929 companies were listed on the LSE. This figure represents a substantial decrease from even 8 years ago in 2015, when there were over 2,400 companies listed on the LSE, as the number of UK IPOs has not kept pace with the number of 'take private' acquisitions and other delistings during this period.

Furthermore, the LSE is widely seen as comprising of a higher proportion of "old economy" businesses operating in industries such as mining, oil & gas or traditional financial services, especially in comparison with the New York Stock Exchange and NASDAQ, both popular listing venues for new and fast growing tech companies.

Diagnosing London's dilemma

What then are the reasons behind the UK's stuttering equity markets? Also, what can be done, and what is currently being done, to attract more companies, specifically high growth tech companies, to list in the UK?

One reason often put forward is that there is less appetite amongst UK institutional investors to invest in the domestic stock market. As recently as the 1990s, UK pension funds had allocated around 50% of their assets to UK equities, whereas that figure is now closer to 2% of their assets. This dramatic shift is often attributed, at least in part, to regulations requiring companies to hold pension deficits on their balance sheets, which in turn is said to have triggered a shift in the investing appetite amongst UK pension funds away from the stock market and towards less risky assets, such as government bonds. It could also be argued that the diversification away from UK equities is an result of London listed companies being seen to underperform their peers listed overseas. For example, UK equities returned 6% a year for the past decade vs a return on US equities of 12%.

However, the regulatory environment for UK listings has also attracted scrutiny from commentators. In particular, the recently reformed UK rules on free float and dual class share structures had been seen as deterring would be UK listings, in particular companies that wanted to float a relatively small portion of their overall share capital. Likewise, old UK rules on dual class share structures were viewed as impediments to listings by founder led tech businesses as the old UK rules prohibited dual class structures from listing on the LSE's premium listing segment.

Other governance rules that have also frequently been labelled as dissuading high growth companies from listing in London include regulations in respect of related party transactions which require shareholder approval for deals between a company and, for examples, its major shareholders, as well as requiring shareholder approval of certain other significant transactions.

What is being done to change course?

On 3 November 2020, the UK Chancellor launched a UK Listings Review, chaired by Lord Hill to propose reforms to counteract the decline in London listings. The review's recommendations included the delivery of an annual report to Parliament setting out the steps taken in that year to enhance London's position as an international destination for IPOs, as well as redesigning the UK's post-Brexit prospectus regime and empowering investors by tailoring information to better meet their needs.

On 2 December 2021, the FCA published changes to the Listing Rules taking into account the recommendations of the UK Listings Review, including reducing the free float requirement to 10% and also allow a targeted form of dual class share structures for premium listed issuers.

Building on the UK Listings Review, on 3 May 2023, the FCA released a consultation paper in which it laid out its 'blue print' for a new single listing category for equity shares in commercial companies (ESCC). The main reforms proposed are as follows:

• The introduction of a single ESCC category to replace the current premium and standard share listing categories as well as a new listing category for special purpose acquisition companies (SPACs).
• The removal of compulsory shareholder votes for significant transactions and related party transactions.
• Easing rules requiring companies to have a three-year financial and revenue earning track record as well as a clean working capital statement as a condition for listing. Instead, a disclosure-based approach would be adopted that puts the onus on shareholders to satisfy themselves that certain risks have been adequately disclosed to investors.
• Reforming the rules relating to dual class share structure.

The consultation closed on 28 June 2023 and the proposed reforms could, according to the FCA, be implemented as early as 2024.

The reforms ostensibly seek to make Listings Rules more flexible and less burdensome from an administrative perspective. However, some UK investors have suggested that such a radical overhaul of the existing rules shifts supervisory responsibility from regulators to shareholders and investors, although the FCA insists that its emphasis on disclosure and transparency will ultimately help safeguard market integrity and increase investor protections. There is also a concern among market participants that additional reforms are required to address the other underlying of the UK's equity market malaise, such as a perceived lack of investment appetite amongst UK pension funds and other institutional investors in UK listed companies.

Looking forward

The extent to which any of these changes already actioned or those proposed by the FCA have had or will have an impact the number and type of UK listings remains to be seen. While in theory the changes proposed in the latest FCA consultation should make London a more attractive place for companies looking to list, the challenges currently facing the UK equity markets are unlikely to be solved by these changes alone and the debate regarding exactly how to revitalise and resuscitate the UK's equity markets should continue to remain a priority for UK regulators and policy makers.

Consumers' demand on sustainability

Consumers are increasingly motivated by values beyond price and big names. In a survey published by The Hong Kong Polytechnic University in July 2022 on consumer perceptions of sustainable fashion in Hong Kong and Macau, more than 80% of the respondents stated that they would consider a brand's position on sustainability issues and if the product is sustainable when deciding whether to make a purchase.

Consumers now demand brands to produce their products sustainably which entails a commitment to ethics in their operations. Brands are asked, among other goals, to offset their carbon footprint, reduce their carbon emissions and to support fairtrade and equality in production.

This switch in attitude is perhaps reflective of an influx of new generations of luxury customers: the Millennials and the Generation Zs ("Gen Zs"). Aware of the increasing threats of climate change, evidenced by frequent natural disasters over recent years, these new customers are conscious of their own environmental impact. As such, they may be more willing to support sustainable and ethical businesses.

The luxury industry's response

Over the years, different luxury brands have positioned themselves to satisfy the request for sustainability. Tiffany & Co., for example, has advertised its zero-tolerance policy for purchasing diamonds from countries with human rights infringement, and has funded initiatives in relation to responsible mining and marine conservation through the Tiffany & Co. Foundation.

Rolex, on the other hand, has launched the "Rolex Award for Enterprise" which gives out cash prizes to entrepreneurs between the age of 18 to 30 for projects that bring positive environmental change.

Not only are brands committing themselves to fund sustainable initiatives, some are also reinvesting their profits into developing more sustainable practices in both production and sales.

For example, Patagonia recently announced that it is replacing virgin polyester in its products with recycled ocean plastics, reducing their carbon footprint by 13,000 tons of CO2e, and aiming for a full transition to renewable or recycled materials in all its products by 2025.  Meanwhile, Bally launched its first virtual live showroom in 2020 as a strategy to adapt to the travel hiatus caused by the pandemic and in an effort to reduce CO2 emissions caused by travel

Collectively, various companies in the fashion and textile industry have also come together to form a global initiative known as the Fashion Pact. Its members include multiple upmarket labels such as Hermès, Ralph Lauren, Chanel, Chloé, Celio, Bally and Prada. Together, they committed to a common core of environmental goals: to stop global warming, to restore biodiversity and to protect the oceans.

In December 2022, the Fashion Pact announced its Collective Virtual Purchasing Power Agreement, for the group's investment into renewable energy projects across Europe. According to the Fashion Pact's press release on 8 December 2022, the Agreement seeks to add over 100,000 MWh per year of renewable energy generation to the grid, offsetting the emissions from approximately 24,400 cars on the road.

A leap forward

With Millennials and Gen Zs being accountable for more and more luxury purchases, an increasing number of luxury labels are taking real life steps towards sustainable practices, beyond pledges and campaigns.

The actions of the Fashion Pact and other brands and retailers is a welcome step for the luxury industry to turn towards the goal of preserving our planet and its resources. It is clear that the big players are now working towards sustainability which is an encouraging start to a new era in luxury, and it is anticipated that an increasing number of brands will follow suit.

Yet whilst real-life employees seem to be losing out, a new suite of generative artificial intelligence ("AI") products have been infiltrating the business world. The question is: are they offering the true disruption to how we work that AI has been promising?

What is generative AI?

The key selling point for generative AI compared to AI we’ve seen before lies in generative AI’s ability to create new things rather than just beating you at your favourite boardgame.

Generative AI can produce new creations from prompts given by users. In theory, the AI knows how to create what the user wants because it has been trained on large quantities of example data to mimic things people have created before. Many new generative AIs use the internet to make their training easier by trawling through the multitude of text and image data available online (no 80s montage needed).

This technology has now matured into a range of marketable products. Notable entries include ChatGPT, a chat bot that can set you homework, do it for you then give you feedback, Stable Diffusion, which generates images based on keyword prompts, and GitHub Copilot, whose creators claim it is writing up to 40% of the code for software engineers using it.

Businesses see the potential

Businesses already use a range of AI tools on a daily basis, from predicting what customers might want to buy so that prices can be adjusted in real-time to powering basic chat-bots that can answer high-volume queries. AI is also used for fraud prevention, increasing detection of true positives by 50%, reducing false positives by 60% and substantially reducing costs wasted on investigations not related to fraud.

Generative AI presents the next step in how businesses can use AI by automating creative tasks that traditionally can only be completed, or at least started, using human input. This could include writing marketing and sales copy, drafting documents or even side-stepping the entire creative process by writing and illustrating publishable books. ChatGPT, in particular, has seen use in academia to shorten previously time-consuming tasks such as drafting course structures and co-writing academic papers.

Generative AI has not just gained a lot of attention in the press and on social media. The World Economic Forum recently highlighted its importance as throughout 2022 investors put $1.37bn towards generative AI start-ups.

OpenAI, the creators of ChatGPT and image generator DALL-E, are backing themselves with a projection of $1 billion revenue by 2024. This confidence comes from the likes of Microsoft directly investing in OpenAI and being vocal about seeing ChatGPT as a way to disrupt the internet search engine market. In fact, Microsoft have already begun embedding ChatGPT into Bing, with "multiple millions" currently on the waiting list to give it a try and are eager to roll-out similar functionality across Microsoft's suite of software.

Generating problems

Unsurprisingly, not everyone is happy at the prospect of AI encroaching on their creative territory, with Nick Cave describing AI written music as "a grotesque mockery of what it is to be human". Yet, generative AI faces more problems than simply being unpopular. Substantive disputes are anticipated in the wake of generative AI gaining widespread use. For example, visual artists are not happy with AI products being trained on their work without their consent and have responded by creating a tool which searches over 5 billion images to check whether their work has been used to train an AI.

Questions are also being raised on the ownership of AI generated art with some proposing that there will need to be judicial or legislative interpretations on the threshold between AI creations being copies of existing styles, which would infringe copyright, or being new creations informed by existing styles, which would not infringe. More complex authorship and ownership issues are also forming as artists begin creating their own generative AIs, train them solely on their own work but then let those AIs create new art. However, if recent court decisions are followed, such as Thaler v Comptroller-General of Patents, Designs and Trade Marks which is currently being appealed, then it may be some time before AIs can qualify as legitimate creators, authors or inventors.

The quality of generative AI's work has also faced scrutiny. This isn't too surprising given that anything trained based solely on information on the internet is bound to pick up a few bad habits from the relentless waves of misinformation and general nastiness found online. However, generative AI faces unique problems such as the fact that prompts given to an AI can drastically change what is produced. Current generative AIs also confidently produce incorrect answers without any hesitation, something which university leaders have found as a telling way that one has been used to write an essay. This means that human users also need to be carefully trained to ensure each AI generates something valuable and to recognise poor quality responses.

Another crucial factor causing concern is that the underlying neural networks and deep learning that next-gen AIs use means that it can be difficult, and often impossible, to understand exactly how a generative AI has reached a decision or created its masterpiece. This has led to some businesses beginning to crack down on allowing employees to use generative AI at work due to the fear of confidential information shared with AIs being leaked.

Looking forward

Potential advantages of the cloud to business

Cloud computing is an on-demand delivery of computer services. It includes storage, software, databases and documents.³ The main advantages of cloud usage for businesses are:

• Cost-effectiveness and flexibility: As cloud computing provides services on-demand, businesses only pay for what they use. This allows businesses to better optimise their budgets and to remain competitive. Before the cloud became a practical alternative, businesses had to buy and maintain expensive IT management technology and infrastructure.
• Storage: Users can store and access files from anywhere using services such as Google Drive and Dropbox. Cloud infrastructure means that individuals can save storage space on their devices. Software can also be upgraded more quickly since software companies can offer their products over the Internet.
• Mobility and data recovery: Users can check their emails on any device and use software on any computer. Cloud computing also makes it possible for music, photos and other files to be backed up, meaning they can be quickly recovered in the event of hardware failure.
• Scalability: Resources such as storage, network bandwidth or processing power can be increased or decreased on demand, according to the computing requirements of the business.

Businesses are therefore moving away from in-house IT equipment in favour of renting cloud platforms, infrastructure and software. Indeed, cloud computing is rapidly moving towards mainstream adoption, even in the most conservative industries such as financial and legal services.

Talking points in cloud computing

Speed, convenience and innovation have motivated many businesses to move large parts of their computing to cloud platforms. However, there are still a number of challenges associated with the cloud that businesses need to manage:

• Cybersecurity: Although regulations require cloud computing services to reinforce their security and compliance measures, this is an enduring area of concern. If cloud services are interrupted, the knock on effects are likely to be significant, potentially to a range of businesses using those services.To enhance the security of any sensitive data stored on the cloud, encryption can be effective; however, if the encryption key is lost, the information is in danger of being wiped out.
• Geographical reach: Servers supported by cloud computing providers are susceptible to internal bugs, power cuts and natural disasters. The geographical scope of cloud computing is a double-edged sword. A power outage in London could incapacitate users in Paris, and a firm based in New York could lose data if its California-based provider crashes for any reason. With large numbers of employees and individuals accessing and modifying information via a single portal, mistakes can transmit across a whole system or organisation.
• Legal risks: Businesses that process sensitive consumer data, such as medical or financial information, must remain cognisant of the legal and regulatory implications of using cloud computing services.To this end, businesses and cloud service providers should regularly evaluate their information security, data protection and business continuity management policies and frameworks.⁴

Evaluation

With the widespread adoption of cloud computing, businesses are benefiting from more cost-effective, efficient and scalable IT resources. Service providers can deploy updates and fixes to software more quickly and users receive the latest system improvements as soon as they are released. Individuals have on demand access to files and software from any location. Cloud infrastructures also encourage environmental responsibility by running virtual services, as opposed to physical products and hardware.

On the other hand, businesses risk losing control over their data and the level of service they receive. With cloud computing, the power to decide who accesses the data, as well as the features being used, is now in the hands of the cloud service provider. With customers putting pressure on cloud providers to reduce their costs and fixed charges, businesses have to work hard to optimise their cloud spending. Additionally, with increased accessibility and reach, bug fixes, system failures or even routine updates can render an entire system unresponsive. As such, cloud computing risks and mitigation can be difficult to evaluate internally.

Will the cloud burst?

Cloud computing comes with both advantages and risks. Businesses should remain mindful of these risks and how they may affect their productivity and wider reputation. However, in today’s competitive environment, when businesses are looking for methods to increase their productivity, efficiency and overall performance, cloud computing certainly presents an opportunity.

The impact of Brexit

The hospitality industry employed more than 400,000 migrant workers before Brexit, with almost 75% of London's hospitality workers coming from the EU. But the practical challenges of Brexit have made the UK a markedly different employment market for EU workers, as EU citizens who wish to move to the UK will be subject to the same rules as citizens from the rest of the world (with the exception of Irish citizens).

All in all, there has been a 41% decrease in the number of EU citizens working in the UK hospitality sector since 2019.  According to recent figures from the Office of National Statistics, there are currently around 170,000 hospitality jobs available (a record figure) and over 80% more vacancies than in May 2019. The highest number of vacancies are in front of house and chef positions –key roles needed to run a restaurant.  With a shortage of integral team members, businesses are finding it much harder to maintain standards and provide quality customer service.

As well as staff shortages, Brexit led to a 6% increase in food prices. According to 'U.K. in a Changing Europe,' a think tank led by LSE, the Covid pandemic was not a factor contributing to the price hike, and 'major disruption' to UK trade within the UK is to blame.  These increased prices have put a squeeze on restaurants already struggling to make ends meet.

Covid

Twelve months of coronavirus lockdowns (between March 2020 and March 2021) disproportionately affected the hospitality sector, with the industry's economic output falling by 42% in 2020. Such extensive disruption left businesses with depleted cash reserves and unsurmountable debt, leaving many restaurants with no option but to close their doors for good. 

Government support for the industry included the 'Eat Out to Help Out' scheme, whereby government-subsidised discounts on food and non-alcoholic drinks were offered in certain restaurants and cafes.  By the end of September 2020, over 160 million meals had been discounted, working out at £849 million claimed.  Despite providing a temporary boost in restaurant footfall, the scheme failed to have any meaningful long-term impact. Unsurprisingly, the increased demand was limited to those days when a discount was available, and demand dwindled once the scheme ended.  Further, the increased footfall caused by the scheme may have had an adverse effect on the spread of Covid, meaning that any temporary economic gains might have come at the cost of public health.

Inflation

Just when you thought things couldn't get worse for the restaurant industry… they did.  The UK's inflation rate reached 11.1% in October 2022, influenced by the increased cost of consumer goods, supply chain issues and an increase in wholesale food prices.  As of November 2022, UK food price inflation hit a record high of 12.4%. Energy prices have also increased sharply - caused by global factors, including Russia's invasion of Ukraine

As well as the direct effect on restaurants struggling to meet the increased costs of food and energy, the increased cost of living has reduced consumer spending.  The UK is not currently in an economic recession (although this has been forecast), however consumer confidence is currently weaker now than during the last four major recessions. This means that consumers are pessimistic about their own economic situation and are therefore less likely to spend money on non-essential purchases.  For businesses that rely on consumer spending, like restaurants, the outlook is disheartening.

So, what can be done to help? It's hard knowing what to do as a consumer, particularly when we are all feeling the pinch. However, if you're in a position to do so, here are some ways we can support the restaurant industry:

• Stay local and independent – smaller businesses often need support;
• Don't forget that restaurant vouchers can make great gifts;
• Order takeaways if you can, whether this is directly from the restaurant, or via a delivery service; and
• Don't forget to treat yourself and loved ones – if the last few years have taught us anything, it's that we must make the most of spending time together. 

Business

2022 was not the big bounce-back year for business and the economy that was expected following the end of UK Covid restrictions.

As businesses try to cope with ever-increasing operating costs, due to the energy crisis and supply chain issues, there is likely to be a requirement for more government intervention. However, from April 2023, government help is set to be curtained. The trainees believe more help will be required unless the economic forecast improves. Taxpayers will also be hit from April as the personal allowance freeze continues. As a result, some trainees can see the reduction in consumer spending continuing or worsening after this point.

The trainees predict that interest rate rises are likely to have peaked in the aftermath of the September mini-budget, and we are likely to see a gradual return to pre-September rates as the UK comes out of a recession towards the second half of 2023. Only time will tell how long this will actually take. The rise in interest rates has also caused some landlords to start selling up. This has increased the supply of available properties in the market and the trainees believe that property prices are therefore likely to fall throughout 2023, something we already saw starting to happen in the latter months of 2022. So at least there looks to be some good news on the horizon for those looking to buy their first property!

Entertainment

When one thing works in the entertainment world, it tends to cause a domino effect (anyone know whether there are any more Disney films that haven't had a live action remake?). If the upcoming HBO series, The Last of Us, based on a popular (and pretty terrifying) video game about a zombie invested post-apocalyptic world, as well as the Super Mario Movie being released in the spring, are big hits, we predict an influx of announcements of video games being adapted for film and TV.

Studios and streaming services will also be keen to ensure they are putting out the best projects. With the cost-of-living crisis affecting disposable income, we expect that consumers will be taking a hard look at which streaming services they can cut back on during 2023. We think streaming services will see a decrease in their users, and other platforms will follow Netflix in further limiting the number of devices that can be used per account to prevent large numbers of distant family or acquaintances sharing the same password. 

On the other hand, we predict that consumers may attend the cinema more in 2023 than in 2022. With increasingly more big films being released straight onto streaming services, those films that do follow the more traditional path of being released in the cinema have made a lot of money in the box office in recent months and we predict this trend will continue. Those films that have had a very short spell in the cinema before being put on streaming sites (like The Glass Onion) have seen a lot of success with high numbers viewing at the cinema. With households cutting back on the number of streaming services they subscribe to, there will be more room in the budget to have a treat visit to the local cinema every now and again, something which many will have missed during the pandemic. 

Legal in England and Wales 

The extension of the fixed costs regime is bound to be a hot topic in the legal sector in 2023, seeing the regime applying to most civil cases worth up to £100,000. With the MOJ's promise of the regime being extended in October 2023, we are likely to see a big shake up in the business model of claimant solicitor firms across the country. However, given the multiple delays to date, it remains to be seen whether fixed costs will roll over to our 2024 predictions!

The court's continual backlog will no doubt be an issue to tackle next year. History has demonstrated that more litigation occurs during difficult economic times, so it is likely we will see the courts become even more overwhelmed as 2023 progresses and we can expect delays to increase further. The court will need to embrace innovation if it is to overcome the long delays that are becoming the norm for court users.

Finally, despite previous trainee predictions that competition for NQ jobs would increase, 2022 saw quite the opposite. Indeed, firms have been fighting tooth and nail for fresh talent, with many raising their NQ salaries by unprecedented amounts to attract the best candidates. The changing economic outlook is unlikely to see this trend continue. However, we predict (from a completely neutral standpoint, of course) that there is likely to remain a need for bright, junior lawyers, particularly in litigation firms. In fact, litigation may well be one of the strongest sectors to weather the economic storm that 2023 looks set to bring as court cases are predicted to increase.

Sports

Over the next 12 months, Women’s sport is set to continue to grow, with the headline act being the FIFA Women’s World Cup 2023. After the Lioness’ brilliant UEFA Euro 2022 campaign earlier this year, the tournament is set to be a ‘roaring’ success amongst English sports fans in particular (pun very much intended).

On the commercial side of sport, we may witness the sale of two footballing giants in Liverpool and Manchester United (see comments from RPC’s Josh Charalambous in The Times and continued debate surrounding betting sponsorship in major sports. We may also see the potential fallout from increased pushback against ‘sportswashing’ (as has been seen already with TFL’s ban on Qatari ads on London’s public transport network).

Finally, climate change will be another ‘hot’ topic this year, as the sports world battles with the optics and logistics of hosting major sports events at a time when concern for our planet’s wellbeing seems at an all-time high. For instance, this year UK Sport became a signatory to the UN Sport for Climate Action, and the International Olympic Committee is considering, amongst other climate-related initiatives, introducing temperature-based criteria for potential host cities of the Winter Olympics.

Technology

2022 saw technology become a more stable presence in our lives than in the tumultuous, covid-affected preceding years. However, it was a tricky year for crypto, as the 'crypto-winter' saw the market experience a drastic slump. The situation was not helped by the very public collapse of the FTX, one of the world's largest crypto exchanges, and the arrest of its founder amidst rumours of dodgy dealings ("will Sam Bankman be Fried?" one trainee asked). The trainees think that regulation could be the name of the game in 2023 if crypto is to return to its former glory, as serious investors are likely to want reassurance that proper safeguards will be put in place.

Heightened regulation also looks set to impact social media, particularly by way of the UK's incoming Online Safety Bill, which will put stronger obligations on platforms to take proactive steps to reduce the visibility of harmful material, as well as the anticipated arrival of the Digital Markets Unit, a big tech regulator which aims to strengthen consumer protections in the tech marketplace.

The trainees are also intrigued by the ongoing development of the metaverse across a variety of platforms and think it likely that consumers and businesses will continue to experiment with its applicability in the coming year. Perhaps the 2023 trainee intake will be inducted through a virtual model of the office...

UK Politics

It seems like we have had enough political drama in the last twelve months to last a decade but that doesn’t stop us looking to what could be a crucial year in UK politics next year. One trainee was hoping for some stability and calm after even a lettuce outlasted one of our most recent leaders! However, some pondered whether we could be heading into another period of "interesting times" once the January blues start to kick in and reality starts calling.

Whoever leads us throughout 2023 (and the trainees are wary that whoever is leading at the beginning of 2023 may not be there at the end) will certainly have a full plate to deal with as the year starts with widespread industrial action and rising prices at the top of the agenda. One trainee even predicted that strikes could continue well into the spring and summer.

Finally, further change could be in order with local elections loaded for May. Voters will be returning to the ballot box and the trainees also think that there could be a swing in public opinion, based on recent by-election results, which could trigger a wider political movement. What direction that movement will be in remains to be seen.

Environment

It was a very icy December for the UK in 2022. However, freezing temperatures are not set to continue throughout the winter. "La Nina's" temporary cooling effect on global average temperature is scheduled to come to an end in 2023 and projected average global temperature rises will reach at least 1°C above what they were in pre-industrial times for the 10th year in a row. The trainees predict that climate concerns will remain top of business (and hopefully government) agendas to give a boosted drive for creative ways of offsetting the impacts of the growing climate emergency. 

In addition to Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, other factors combined to heighten energy and food security concerns in 2022. The UN's Food and Agricultural Organisation has confirmed that food production accounts for 25% of greenhouse gas emissions, 30% of global energy consumption, 72% of freshwater usage and 40% of land usage. Therefore, new agricultural solutions for food production will likely be a focal point for 2023 but the trainees remain sceptical about whether "clean solutions" will gain much traction.

With the recent approval of cellular (lab grown) meat production for the first time by the US Food and Drug Administration, the trainees debated whether they would happily switch their meal deal chicken wrap for a cellular chicken alternative. Unsurprisingly, many would still prefer "real meat". It will be interesting to see whether regulatory agendas align with technological solutions to create a wholesale change in food habits and production for 2023.

What are the benefits of a four-day week?

Productivity 

According to independent research by the Henley Business School, 66% of employees surveyed thought a four-day working week would mean they produced more work of a higher quality. Employers agreed with 64% reporting increased productivity, echoing a 2019 experiment where Microsoft, Japan also found a 40% increase in its productivity.

The BBC interviewed several participants of the four-day pilot programme who shared similar sentiments, expressing that shortening the working week had "forced us to be more pragmatic, more proactive and manage our time more effectively." This includes cancelling non-essential meetings or employees having to manage personal life tasks (e.g. attending health appointments or calling a utility provider) outside working hours because they had an additional day off to deal with these things. To achieve their 100% productivity commitment, some participant businesses introduced dedicated periods of task-focused work free from distractions like reviewing emails or answering phone calls. These early findings suggest that with planning and careful thought, productivity can increase despite a four-day week creating shorter timeframes for completing tasks. 

Staff wellbeing and retaining talent 

"The Great Resignation" saw record numbers of employees quitting their jobs in 2021 and as of March 2022, PwC reported that one in five workers were considering following suit. Combined with employees seeking wage increases to offset a genuine cost of living crisis driven by inflationary pressures, the focus of employers turns ever more to its people. The socio-economic challenges faced by employers (seeking to manage the cost of doing business) and employees (looking to pay their bills) manifests itself most starkly by the record strike action seen at the end of 2022. To best achieve financial balance employers will seek solutions, other than those founded on pay, that best attract, retain and engage their workers. So, staff satisfaction and retaining talent are at the forefront of employers' minds. 

While salary dissatisfaction has consistently ranked as the most popular reason for resigning, a significant percentage of staff also cite poor work-life balance and impact on wellbeing. In one US survey, 45% of workers in 2021 left due to a lack of scheduling flexibility and 39% left because they were working too many hours. Similarly, the UK may see a third of its leavers resigning due to burnout.

Concerns around wellbeing has an impact even for employees who are not contemplating resignation. An overwhelming workload has been directly linked to one in four sickness-related absences and the Health and Safety Executive estimated that it caused 44% of all UK work-related stress, depression and anxiety. One Swedish trial reduced the workday by 2 hours for 17 random workplaces, with funding to recruit additional staff. All of the participating employees reported higher quality sleep, feeling less lethargic and reduced stress. A happy and healthy workforce is a present and productive one, and the four-day working week may be the tool to achieve this.

The Environment 

It is not just people who could benefit, but the planet too. Transport accounts for 23% of global carbon emissions, with 72% just from driving. The four-day week could lower the UK's carbon footprint by an estimated "127 million tonnes per year by 2025, [which is] the equivalent of taking 27 million cars off the road, effectively the entire UK private car fleet". After all, we can all recall the viral images during the Covid lockdown of clear skies in previously polluted cities and the extraordinarily clear blue waters of Venice (even if the dolphins in the Venetian canals were a disappointingly false rumour).

Is the four-day week here to stay?

With these potential benefits in mind, can we expect the four-day week to permanently permeate our working lives?

At the 4-Day pilot programme's halfway mark, 85% of participating businesses felt likely to continue with the new way of working. Outside of the pilot, 111 employers to-date have adopted the initiative and received accreditation from the 4-Day Week Campaign. 

However, making the switch is not without its challenges. One of the major concerns of employers is being sufficiently available for clients, especially when those clients still operate on a traditional five-day week. This could be overcome by staggering employees' days off. However, this requires careful thought as research has shown higher employer control of work scheduling and reduced working hours can lead to increased intensity of work – a move that could actually increase employee stress. Some hesitant employees have also shared worries about their ability to sufficiently hand over to their colleagues. An alternative which is sometimes seen in research trials is to hire additional staff. However, the four-day work week operates on the assumption of paying existing staff their full salaries and with the increased operating costs of today's economy, simply increase their headcount is not likely to be viable for many businesses. 

Further, research in 2021 showed a significant number of employees used their additional day off to take part in secondary employment or side hustles. This figure is likely to be higher now given the emerging cost-of-living crisis. Interestingly, a YouGov survey in 2014 found that 50% of employees would actually work an additional day for 20% more of their salary. This may undermine the four-day week's hailed benefits in relation to increased rest, reduced absenteeism and prevention of burnout. It may, also, make it harder for employers, adopting a four-day week, to receive the anticipated benefit of an employee's shorter working week.

The same 2021 study found that aside from further work, the extra day off saw an increase in shopping, eating out and tourism which would be beneficial for the economy. However, with soaring inflation putting a squeeze on disposable income, it is uncertain whether this would be a significant increase today. In fact, in an interview with the BBC, one participant of the 4-Day pilot programme questioned if the pilot had really been a "full-pelt stress test" of their business because of reduced customer orders caused by the generally poor economic environment. 

Richard Nixon may have predicted the four-day work week "in the not-too-distant future" in 1956, but it remains to be seen whether the majority of employers can be convinced that the benefits outweigh the costs. The pandemic has revolutionised the look of the working world by bringing unprecedented flexibility but as operating costs of businesses soar, is now a realistic time push for further change and adopt the four-day week? For now, we shall have to wait and see the results that the 4-Day pilot programme yields.

The most common pets are dogs and cats, as might be expected, but indoor birds, rodents and rabbits as well as cold blooded pets are also popular. 

In 2017, annual spending on pets plateaued. However, there has been huge growth since then, with the industry expanding from approximately £7.8 billion in 2019 to £9.7 billion in 2021.

What is driving this growth?

The main driver appears to be a desire for companionship, which was likely borne out of the lockdown of 2020 and beyond when people were forced to spend time at home alone. 

The growth seems to largely have come from younger people, with 59% of new pet owners under the age of 35. It is commonly argued that the younger generation are less likely to have children and are replacing them with pets, but this does not appear to be the case. The majority (56%) of new pet owners also have children in the home. 

In addition to an increase in pet purchases, there has also been a change in the nature of the industry. Previously, pet products were largely utilitarian and intended to be as cheap as possible. Most households would not generally spend significant amounts of money on their pets. However, the market is shifting towards more expensive, luxury products and a greater variety as people have begun increasing their spending on their pets. 

Luxury products costing more money are therefore taking off. An example of this is "Pretty Litter" - a brand of cat litter intended to change colour based on the health of your cat. This allows cat owners to notice changes in health and take greater care of the animal. 

The range of products is also growing. There are new product categories emerging continuously. One example is pet wet wipes. These are a relatively new product, but Amazon has almost 300 brands of pet wet wipes available and searches for them have increased by 44% in the past 5 years.  Pet toothpastes are also growing in popularity. Previously, pet owners would throw their animal a chew of some kind for their teeth, but it seems a desire to directly care for their pets' teeth through brushing is becoming increasingly common. 

There is innovation within more traditional pet food industries too.  For example, the pet food market has exploded with a variety of raw dog food, pet supplements and even pet ice cream gaining in popularity.

Is it sustainable?

With some analysts projecting a 4.5% average growth in the period of 2022-2027, it appears that the growth is likely to continue but at a reduced pace. Given that a significant factor in the last two years of growth was the COVID-19 lockdowns, it is not surprising that things are likely to start tapering down. 

There were concerns that new pet owners might not keep their new pets once the world "re-opened", which could hinder market growth. However, these concerns have proved to be largely unfounded.  Only 5% of new pet owners have given up their pets and 74% of new pet owners said the new pet had helped their mental health.  Therefore, it seems that pet ownership is likely to remain popular.

That said, given the present cost of living crisis and high inflation, it is unclear whether this industry is likely to continue growing. Will families prioritise spending on their animals when many will be struggling to pay for energy and other necessities? This remains to be seen. 

But is it environmentally sustainable?

Governments are increasingly regulating human activities that they consider to negatively affect the environment. Therefore, it is possible that pet ownership and the industry in general will eventually be subject to greater regulation in order to meet environmental targets. 

Some commentators predict that owning a dog produces more carbon than driving a family car. This is because, as with human food, production of animal food produces carbon emissions and it is often packaged in plastics, which cannot be easily recycled.

Owning pets can also have significant, negative ecological effects. For example, some shampoos, sprays and flea treatments can damage local wildlife and insect populations. In addition, domestic outdoor cats are estimated to kill over 100 million mammals and birds a year in the UK, and between 7.5 and 26.3 billion in the US. A truly staggering figure. This has led to calls in the US to regulate cat ownership and, in particular, to ban or localise the practice of cats being let out of the house. In the UK, it is extremely common for cats to roam the streets, yet, in the US, the majority of cats are housebound. 

Will an increasingly environmentally conscious but animal loving generation continue to own domestic animals at such a high level given these effects? With the predicted increases in the pet industry over the next 5 years, it is unlikely that these concerns will have any significant effect in the short term. Indeed, given the average lifespans of domestic cats and dogs it is unlikely that any reduction will be seen for at least 7-15 years. With any luck, someone will have thought of some environmentally friendly solutions to pet ownership in that time.

Other sources

1. "...3.2 million pets have been purchased...17 million pet owning homes and around 34 million pets... increase has been most pronounced among younger households..."
   
   

Footnotes

1. "...increase of 12%..." - Brand Essence Research, 'Clean Beauty Market Size Share Companies & Trends Analysis Report By Product Type (Hair Care, Face Products, Skin Care, Hair Care, Oral Care, Makeup, Wrinkle Care Products), By Distribution Channel (Online Sale, Retail Sale), Based On Region And Segment Forecasts 2022 – 2028', February 2022
2. Miranda A Farage, 'The Prevalence of Sensitive Skin', Front Med (Lausanne) 2019

3. Linda Carroll, 'Can 'all-natural' products irritate your skin? Yes, and here's how to avoid it', TODAY 4 May 2016

Whilst subscriptions as a whole are not new, the sheer number and range of subscriptions available increased significantly during the pandemic. But is this trend here to stay?

What is the subscription business model? 
The subscription business model refers to a business where the customer pays a set amount periodically (often monthly), in exchange for goods or services each period, usually tailored to their preferences.

Subscriptions for books began as early as the 17th century with subscribers making payments to publishers (or authors directly) in advance for proposed publications.  By the 20th century, subscriptions increased and diversified to include things like magazines, milk deliveries and eventually cable TV. The rise of the internet and e-commerce then widened the variety of subscriptions even further.  

Today, you can get a subscription for just about anything from digital content like TV, audio books and music, to physical products like clothes, perfumes or food boxes from your favourite restaurant. There's even a subscription box for left handers, complete with different left-hand designed products each month. 

Where has this surge in subscriptions come from?
Firstly, the benefits to businesses are huge. Creating a following of customers, who are guaranteed to pay a set amount on a set day, gives them a predictable and secure income. This is attractive to investors and banks which can therefore assist with raising capital. It also allows companies to plan their spending with more certainty.

A further benefit is that subscription companies are only required to persuade each customer to purchase their product once, rather than selling to them time and time again. Subscriptions therefore help build customer loyalty. The creation of an ongoing relationship allows businesses to get to know their customers and collect data on their preferences. This in turn benefits consumers by ensuring that they are getting the products they want. An increasingly personalised service will then likely promote further brand loyalty, making this a positive feedback loop for both the customer and the business. 

For consumers, the biggest benefit of subscriptions is likely to be the convenience of receiving products directly to their door. Subscribers will periodically receive goods or services curated to their needs and desires, without requiring much thought or effort on their part. They will also avoid the rigmarole of making online payments as they only need to fill in their details once. Future payments will then automatically come out of their bank until they choose to cancel. 

The future 
As the world reopens and inflation soars, consumers' disposable income has decreased. The biggest challenge for subscription businesses was already consumer retention and no doubt this will be magnified as we emerge into a post-Covid world. It is noteworthy that Netflix reported its first fall in subscribers in a decade in April 2022. This followed the nationwide increase in energy costs (although other factors may well have contributed to the exodus of subscribers). 

Convenience has become even more important to consumers as they return to working in the office and spending more time away from home. It may deter consumers if they have to wait at home for their subscription box or collect it from the post office. On the flip side however, if a personalised subscription box can be delivered easily, without much thought or effort on the customer's part, the desire for subscription services may well increase as consumers' free time decreases. 

One method that businesses have used to improve convenience is providing letterbox delivery. Letterbox flowers were perhaps one of the earliest examples of this type of delivery. However, other, rather unexpected, businesses have also found ways to offer convenient delivery. For example, a wine subscription company now offer a unique, flattened 750ml wine bottle to ensure your wine is there waiting for you when you get home. 

Such innovations have ensured that consumers continue to pay for subscriptions, and it is therefore predicted that the subscription business model will continue to grow over the coming years. The UK subscription box market was expected to be worth £1.8bn by 2025, however this was accelerated by the pandemic which meant it had already reached £1.4bn by 2020 . Therefore, despite the squeeze on disposable income and other challenges facing the industry, it continues to grow. 

Depending on the type of business, a subscription service can be relatively easy to set up with low start-up costs and the thriving market means that there are plenty of opportunities for new businesses. Entrepreneurs are continuing to set up subscription businesses and their success has already attracted a number of big companies. It therefore seems likely that others will follow suit to ensure they remain competitive.

With the pandemic seemingly now behind us, the subscription market remains buoyant despite the other challenges now facing the country. Therefore, it appears that the subscription business model is very much here to stay. Although it will no doubt evolve as trends and tastes do, the underlying model is likely to be around for years to come thanks to the huge benefits it offers to both consumers and businesses alike. It will be interesting to see how subscriptions are incorporated into business models across a variety of sectors in the future. 

Other sources

1. "online shopping sales in the UK rising by 48%" 

The easy-to-digest and largely predictable nature of reality TV makes it ideal lockdown viewing – especially at a time when the British public are watching more television than ever. According to the ratings analyst, Barb, viewing across broadcast TV is up by more than 30% in the UK. Further, the number of subscriptions to video streaming services, such as Netflix, Amazon Prime and Disney+, reached 1.1 billion globally in 2020.
And it's not hard to see why. Reality TV provided a much-desired escape from the reality of the pandemic. Wild concepts and scenarios for shows felt more normal than the current situation the world was facing. Unable to continue life as we knew it, we found refuge in drama and fiction. 

Who else is desperately waiting to hear 'I got a text'? ITV definitely is!

Arguably one of the most successful reality TV series right now is that of ITV's Love Island. The show sees single 'Islanders' enter a luxury villa (in some exotic location) in search of love. Over a six – eight week run, the Islanders either 'couple up' or face being dumped from the villa, whilst facing obstacles such as 'Casa Amor' (a rival villa filled with new Islanders ready to tempt and break even the strongest couples) and dumpings decided by the British public. The winning couple will then face a final twist at the end whereby they must each pick a random envelope; one envelope holds the £50,000 prize money, whilst the other contains nothing. The Islander who picks the envelope with the prize money then has the choice of picking love (and subsequently splitting the prize money with their partner) or taking the entire £50,000 for themselves. 

To understand the phenomenon that Love Island UK has become, Season 1 aired in 2015 and attracted an average of 570,000 viewers an episode, whereas Season 5 reached 5.61 million viewers on average per episode. From the water bottles to the outfits worn by the Islanders (sponsored by brands such as I Saw It First and Missguided), Love Island has become a lucrative revenue stream for ITV. It is also now an international franchise, with fifteen versions being produced so far, including in Australia, USA and Germany.

However, due to the pandemic, Love Island was unable to air their summer series in the UK in 2020. Whilst lockdown saw streaming services such as Netflix, Amazon Prime and Disney+ reach new subscriber heights, ITV saw its shares hit a nine-year low in April 2020. Even with the broadcaster’s attempt to join the streaming market with Britbox (in collaboration with the BBC), it is now only with the return of the postponed Euro 2020 tournament and Love Island (where ITV2 is charging brands up to £100,000 an advert) that ITV is seeing advertising revenue rebound and a subsequent return to the FTSE 100.

It's time to shed the 'guilt' around reality TV

Despite shows like Strictly Come Dancing, I’m A Celebrity Get Me Out of Here and The Great British Bake Off drawing in their “best audiences in years” in the UK and the obvious success of Love Island, there is still a sense of shame and stigma that lingers around reality TV and such shows are still often described as "guilty pleasures", "unchallenging" or "low brow".  

According to theorist, Paddy Scannell, reality TV is, 'purposeless entertainment', which is “relaxed and sociable, shareable and accessible, non-exclusive, equally talkable about in principle and practice by everyone”. In short, the importance of reality TV lies in its very purposelessness; it exists to confirm our common humanity. We are drawn in by the potential romance and conflict, as well as a host of other relatable situations such as body and relationship insecurities, friendships, rivalries and raw, genuine (well, sometimes) human emotion. 

In the same manner, football could also be classed as 'purposeless entertainment': it serves the same purpose of asserting sociality and providing excitement around an essentially purposeless activity. However, unlike football, reality TV still hasn't shaken off its moral condemnation. This may be because not all reality TV can be light-hearted and reassuring. There is no denying the appeal of watching the 'funny' (i.e. the truly awful) X Factor auditions or that some Islanders during their stint on Love Island suffer humiliation and backlash. 

However, overall, the importance of reality TV lies in its affirmation of social connection and togetherness and it has become an important resource for many people during the pandemic. This is the true purpose behind this genre of TV’s seemingly 'purposelessness' nature and we shouldn't be made to feel guilty for our love of it any longer. 

So, whatever you are watching this summer, enjoy it, gossip about it, get a little obsessed with it, but most of all, be PROUD of it!

The UK

In the UK, the infamous HS2 project linking London with Birmingham, Manchester and Leeds via a network of high-speed trains has become a something of a political embarrassment. Completion of the line has recently been pushed back to 2031 for the Birmingham branch and 2040 for the Manchester/Leeds branch, and the projected cost of the railway has practically doubled from the initial budget of £56bn to nearly £100bn due to a raft of issues including the under-valuation of the land that had to be purchased to build the railway, protests and asbestos. The cost and the environmental impact of the scheme has attracted no shortage of opponents, who now cite the pandemic and the likely normalisation of working from home as another reason why the project should be scrapped.

The rest of the world

HS2 isn't the only rail project in the world to have run out of steam in recent times. The State of California's plan to build a high-speed rail between Los Angeles and San Francisco, first approved in 2008, has recently been scaled back to a relatively short link between two towns in California's less populated Central Valley, rather than its better-known coastal metropolises. In Brazil, similar plans for a high-speed link between Sao Paulo and Rio de Janeiro were abandoned following a series of funding and regulatory problems. Singapore and Malaysia announced in March 2021 that a project for a high-speed rail link between Kuala Lumpur and Singapore had been shelved after the Malaysian government decided it was cheaper for them to terminate the agreement between the countries and pay Singapore compensation rather than complete the project.

Projects in Taiwan and South Korea were originally completed successfully, only to be derailed in the following years by poor utilisation and sluggish ticket sales. So far, countries have struggled to emulate the success of Japan and China, the only two countries to have successfully delivered and maintained a national network of high-speed railways.

Off the rails

All construction projects carry risk, but why do high-speed projects in particular seem doomed to fail?

The biggest factor in the failure of high-speed projects is the sheer enormity of their budgets. Not only do the initial figures for these railways frequently amount to billions, but, as with HS2, unforeseen costs can quickly pile up and double the budget before a train goes anywhere near the tracks. This is exacerbated further when many projects are funded by government grants, which may need to be re-allocated at a future date if more pressing concerns crop up.

Even when the railways are up and running, the expense of high-speed projects means they take a long time to make a financial return. Ticket prices alone are not sufficient to break even, as the cost of a ticket would have to be astronomical to do so, making them unaffordable.. Instead, projects need to rely on other ventures such as advertising revenue to bolster their takings, but even these sources of income may not be enough to fill the financial dent.

By contrast, air travel is now extremely accessible, with tickets to domestic and short-haul international destinations from the UK frequently costing less than a day-return rail ticket from London to Manchester.  High-speed train operators will struggle to entice potential travellers away from no-frills airlines that can get from A to B for a fraction of the price in a similar timeframe.

Finally, although high-speed trains need separate tracks to ensure their safety, the existing rail infrastructure (such as city 'hub' stations) needs to be in a reasonable condition to cope with the mechanical demands of high-speed rail – another cost that can balloon dramatically if not properly accounted for at the start.

Back on track?

Private financing may be the way forward. Despite the inevitable delays, the Indian government is still optimistic that its plans for a bullet train between Mumbai and Ahmedabad can go ahead, which is funded by a £12.8 billion loan from a group of Japanese investors with business interests in the region.

Alternatively, maybe the future of transport doesn't lie with high-speed rail after all. One technology in the pipeline (quite literally) is 'Hyperloop', which involves pods carrying passengers travelling at high speed through a vacuum tunnel. Several companies are developing the concept, with travel conglomerate Virgin considering deploying it as a link between London's Heathrow and Gatwick airports, reducing the 45-mile journey to a 4 minute ride. At its current pace, high-speed rail runs a risk of being made obsolete by alternative technologies before it has the chance to prove itself.

Given the host of problems troubling high-speed rail, is Hyperloop just a pipe dream? Perhaps, but then again, so was the Tube once…

Singapore's food regulatory agency became the first in the world to grant regulatory approval to a cultured meat product in December 2020 when it allowed the sale of a cultured meat 'chicken bite' developed by US company Eat Just. These chicken bites, which were initially on sale at a single restaurant in Singapore for S$23 each, are now available for home delivery throughout Singapore.

Regulating the meat market

The Singapore food agency has put a new regulatory framework in place to assess 'novel foods' and ensure they are safe for human consumption. According to the agency, rigorous testing of Eat Just's cultured chicken showed that it met the same standards as poultry meat, and that it had a lower bacteria content than traditional chicken. Companies hoping to sell their products in Singapore are encouraged to consult the regulators early in the product development process so that they can understand the requirements before their product is ready for sale.

In 2019 the Food and Drug Administration in the US announced that it would oversee the production of lab-grown meat products jointly with the Department for Agriculture. The decision to oversee regulation jointly highlights the confusion surrounding cultured meats, as there is significant debate about whether they should be sold as traditional meat equivalents. The UK's Food Standards Agency has said that any lab grown meat will be considered a 'novel food' in line with current regulatory standards.

A green mass market solution?

So far, one of the main obstacles to mass consumption of lab grown meat has been its production cost. For example, in 2013 a Dutch start-up, Mosa Meat, unveiled their cultivated beef hamburger, each of which costs €250,000 to produce. Since then, the company has been working to commercialise and scale up production: scientists at Northwestern University have now developed methods that reduce the cost of the most expensive part of the production by 97%. This means, according to Mosa Meat, that the cost of the company's meat could drop to as little as €9 per burger patty.

It is not yet clear how cultured meats can be produced ethically and at scale. Many vegans and vegetarians cite methane emissions as a reason for cutting meat from their diets, and while growing cultured meat does not produce methane, a recent study by the Oxford Martin School suggested that if cultured meat were to entirely replace traditional meat at current consumption levels, the impact on global warming may actually be worse due to increased carbon dioxide emissions. In addition, at present foetal bovine serum, a by-product of cattle slaughter, is an essential part of cultured meat growth. The use of such ingredients may alarm those seeking cruelty-free lifestyles, but their comparatively low environmental impact may be enough for some flexitarians. Some manufacturers are working towards the development of plant-based cell-culture serums, but they're not there yet.

Appetite for investment

Given the increased popularity of animal-free diets, it is no surprise that large meat companies have been looking to invest in their new competitors. Amongst those investing in cultivated meat technology is Tyson Foods, the biggest producer of meat in the US. The company has invested in multiple lab-grown meat companies including Future Meat and Memphis Meat, both of which hope to release their products in the US by 2022. Whilst the mass-market adoption of cultured-meat products might seem a long way off, investments like these mean we could see them alongside or even instead of traditional meat products sooner than we think.

Foodies will say they taste nutty, sweet and add texture. But for many, quite understandably, the "ick" factor is hard to get over no matter how dressed up the consumption of insects is. For others, the benefits of entomophagy are too good to ignore. At a micro level, they provide the consumer with protein, minerals, high-quality fatty acids and are lower in cholesterol than many meat alternatives. For instance, a 100g serving of crickets will provide you with 68 grams of protein as opposed to 26 grams of protein for the same weight of beef. At a macro level, insects require significantly less land, water and feed than traditional meat and fish species and release far fewer greenhouse gases into the atmosphere.

The environmental impact

The UN estimates that the population will hit 10 billion by 2050, which will require a 70% increase in food production. Many consider that in order to feed our growing population, without perpetuating the cycle of environmental degradation, we will be required to overhaul our food production systems. But what would this look like?

The world has a growing appetite for animal protein, which is bad news for the environment.  Beef and soy are the two leading causes of deforestation. With beef, land is cleared for grazing and with soy land is cleared to grow the crop, which is predominately used as animal feed for cattle and other livestock. On top of deforestation, there are further considerations such as greenhouse gas emissions, soil degradation, water usage and waste disposal. Compare this with insect farming, where the negative externalities created, and land and feed requirements are significantly smaller, the appeal of insect consumption begins to appear.              

It has been estimated that insects are as much as 300 times per square metre more efficient in terms of protein output than soy. Insects thrive in close, densely populated environments, and can be fed on food waste. The land use is so minimal that insect farming start up, Entocycle has recently opened a facility under the railway arches of London Bridge, feeding its black soldier flies a diet of surplus fruit and veg, discarded brewers' grains and coffee grounds from the local area.

However, some take their crickets with a pinch of salt. Researchers have pointed out that insect farming has not yet provided evidence of its environmental credibility. For instance, research has shown that crickets fed solely on food waste died before they could be harvested. Those fed a grain-based diet had a conversion rate similar to that of chickens. There is also a risk of accidental animal release and a lack of research into effective waste management. Potential benefits may also be lost through energy intensive heating. Crickets for example need to be kept at 25 degrees Celsius or higher. The alternative would be to import insects from warmer climates, but of course this would add to their carbon footprint.

A business opportunity?

Notwithstanding the environmental benefits of insect protein, the industry has attracted a lot of interest from businesses looking to carve out their slice of a booming industry. A report by Barclays has estimated that the insect protein market could increase to 8 billion dollars by 2030, a vast increase from the less than 1 billion dollars it is presently estimated to be worth

Continental Europe, mainly France and Holland, already has an established insect farming industry for fish and pet food. The EU was due to consider approving the use of insect protein for other animals including poultry, however this has been waylaid by the pandemic. If restrictions are lifted, insect farmers may be able to break into the lucrative animal feed market. As such, in the short term, demand for insect protein is likely to be driven by animal feed rather than human consumption. 

The UK Government is also betting on insect protein as a cost efficient and practical way to produce sustainable animal feed for livestock. The UK Government awarded Entocycle a £10m funding package to develop its operations with a target of breeding 5 million black soldier flies and processing 33,000 tonnes of food waste a year. Supermarkets and restaurant chains are also backing the industry by encouraging their suppliers to use insect protein for animal feed and supplying food waste for insect food.

The jury is out therefore on whether there will be a net gain or loss for the environment due to the pandemic.

Nevertheless, encouragingly, some countries have taken this opportunity to pledge spending packages on environmental policies to support a green recovery. For example, Germany has pledged £36 billion to invest in the environment and the UK has pledged a £3 billion spending package titled the "Build Back Greener" initiative. At the Conservative Party Conference, Boris Johnson laid out this spending plan in his keynote speech. This article looks at some of these initiatives and how they can support economic regrowth in the post-COVID landscape.

Offshore wind

Offshore wind was the star of Boris Johnson's keynote speech and is a central tenet of the UK's environmental policy. The UK is the world's largest user of offshore wind power, roughly 10 gigawatts (GW) of capacity is installed. The UK government has announced a further £160 million package to bolster offshore wind technologies and has increased its offshore power generation target from 30GW to 40GW by 2030.

Offshore wind energy is essentially the use of 'fields' of wind turbines, which have been constructed out at sea, to harvest wind energy to generate electricity.

Most offshore wind farms use infrastructure which is fixed to the ocean floor. However, a rapidly developing technology in this area is floating wind turbines. Floating wind turbines are intended for use in deep water areas, where it is more difficult to embed turbines into the seafloor. They are still in the early stages of development, but they could prove crucial in bolstering the UK's, and the world's, renewable energy capabilities.

This government's investment pledge will see around 2,000 construction jobs created and the sector will be able to support 60,000 jobs directly and indirectly by 2030. The scheme will invest in manufacturing in Teesside, Humber and Scotland and Wales.

There has, however, been some criticism of these proposals. Conservation groups (backed by Joanna Lumley) have urged that the rights of animals need to be protected during the course of constructing windfarms. One particular danger is unexploded munitions that lie  on the seafloor (as remnants from World War 2). These bombs have to be located and detonated in order to clear space for windfarms and this has the potential to harm marine life. Campaigners are therefore calling for these bombs to be cleared in a safe and considerate way to protect the ecosystem 

Green Investment Bank

A second initiative, which is steadily gaining momentum, is a reboot of the government's green investment bank. The initial Green Investment Bank was formed to encourage investment in clean infrastructure projects such as carbon capture and hydrogen. It was sold in 2017 to the Australian bank Macquarie, only 5 years after it was formed. This was a widely criticised move amongst environmental campaign groups. Kwasi Kwarteng, the energy minister, has announced that plans to launch a Green Investment Bank 2.0 are on the horizon.

Additionally, there is growing academic support for green investment, for example Aldersgate Group recently published a report recommending that a state-backed green investment fund could boost Britain's green recovery following the pandemic. The report recommended that individuals who are left unemployed by the pandemic could be deployed in low carbon industries. Furthermore, they recommend a long-term framework for low carbon investment using a rising carbon market price to incentivise private investments.

Road to Zero?

The UK Government has recently announced it intends to implement a ban on the sale of all new petrol and diesel cars from 2030. This ban has been brought forward from 2040. The government are driving (pardon the pun) this switch through various incentives, for example the Plug-in Car Grant, congestion charge discounts, vehicle tax exemption and other tax advantages for companies.

There have however been concerns that the National Grid will be unable to cope with the switch to electric cars. However, Graeme Cooper, the director of the National Grid, has advised that it can cope with a rise in demand. The National Grid estimates that electrifying all cars would require less than a third more energy than Great Britain's current demand of 300 terawatt hours, which Cooper believes the Grid can cope with.

There have also been concerns about how the new road infrastructure required for electric vehicles is going to be built and maintained. Currently, it is paid for by duty on fuel and vehicle tax based on emission levels. However, electric cars don't use petrol or diesel and they generate negligible emissions. One suggestion is that motorists should pay for each mile they travel. However, that will necessarily involve the installation of GPS 'black boxes' in all vehicles, to which some will object on the grounds that it is a further infringement of our civil liberties.

A Greener Future?

Insurance became mandatory for the use of e-scooters in Germany and France in late 2019. With an expected market size of €90 billion for micromobility by 2030, it's no wonder that the UK, Ireland and Spain are currently reviewing their own guidelines in respect of the use and regulation of e-scooters. The opportunity for forward-thinking insurers to profit from this increasingly popular product and the service solutions it may offer is fast approaching.

In the first instance, insurers are going to want evidence of the potential risks associated with the use of e-scooters. Although the risks are difficult to calculate- the European Transport Safety Council (ETSC) has called for more and better data collection and analysis on the safety of e-scooters - claims as a result of e-scooters are increasing. Statistics in the Denmark and Austria show increasing rates of head injuries and collisions caused by accidents involving e-scooters, and e-scooter related injuries in the US increased 222% between 2014 and 2018. Additionally, a recent survey by Brussels Mobility showed that 75% of e-scooter journeys replaced walking or public transport, the shift from walking to the use of e-scooters actually causing a rise in the overall road risks. As current data suggests that the usage of e-scooters may actually increase risks on the road, the ETSC says further data is needed before making any decisions as to how the use of e-scooters can and should be regulated.

At a glance, potential areas which may require the attention of insurers may include product development, pricing and the development of pricing models to capture the new risks (as explored above), market distribution and claims. A potential increase in the purchase of expensive "designer" e-scooters may also see an uptake in policies to protect these vehicles from theft and damage. Breach of rules and regulations relating to speed and location restrictions, or failure to wear a helmet, would become inevitable and may also lead to future claims. The legalisation of the use of e-scooters is likely to bring with it the presence of e-scooter rental companies who will require insurance policies to limit their liability to their customers in the event of an accident.

With US e-scooter rental companies Bird and Lime and European companies Voi and Tier already in talks with the UK government, now is the time for insurers to increase their knowledge and expertise on the use of these "Personal Light Electric Vehicles", partner with the right organisations and solidify their presence in the market. By acting quickly in this increasingly desirable (and potentially soon-to-be-legal) mode of transport, insurers may soon have the opportunity to profit from the rise of this modern innovative product. This has become particularly topical given how overwhelmed Transport for London may be once travel restrictions are lifted and alternative modes of transport are both important and necessary.   

Thousands of people have died, our healthcare systems are stretched to their limits, economies are facing a real possibility of collapse, companies are on the brink of bankruptcy and many individuals are now left unemployed. This is all from a coronavirus that was previously unknown before appearing in Wuhan in December 2019. COVID-19 is an incredibly stressful time for everyone – both on a mental and personal level. Our entire way of life has been changed by it.

However, as the UK enters another week of lockdown, we are starting to see some positives emerge.

Blue-sky thinking

Blue-sky thinking has now taken on a more literal meaning. According to William Collins, a climate professor at the University of Reading, the sky is officially a deeper shade of blue this spring, thanks to decreased air pollution levels and a nationwide slowdown in human activity following lockdown.

In order to control the spread of COVID-19, the world’s most-polluted cities have shut down. With the closure of factories, transport networks and businesses and traffic levels plummeting, there has been a sudden drop in carbon emissions. Transport, for example, makes up 23% of global carbon emissions with driving and aviation contributing 72% and 11% of the transport sector’s greenhouse gas emissions respectively. Carbon emissions have fallen in the short term in countries where public health measures, such as keeping people in their homes, have cut unnecessary travel.

Cities across the UK, such as London, Manchester and Birmingham, have also seen a huge decline in toxic nitrogen dioxide levels, according to a study by the National Centre for Atmospheric Science. Nitrogen dioxide is a harmful gas released when fossil fuels are burnt, usually by power plants and motor vehicles. The drop in nitrogen dioxide levels not only improves air quality but also reduces the risks of asthma, heart attacks and lung disease.

And we're not just seeing improvements in the air. The famous canals in the city of Venice have seen a visible improvement in the quality of water. The government- ordered lockdown has meant a drastic reduction in boats, meaning there is less sediment kicked up and the water is clearer. There are even reports of fish and ducks being spotted back in the canals!

The human footprint on the earth has suddenly lightened. It is a glimpse of what the world might look like with a sustained reduction in fossil fuel use. However, it is far from certain how lasting this blue-sky interlude could last for after the end of pandemic. Governments are priming the economic pumps for a return to 'business-as-usual' in the upcoming months. Although this will be positivity news for the economy, the environmental gains that we have achieved are looking temporary or they may even be reversed.

If we want to emerge from this pandemic into a healthier, cleaner world, long-term political decisions need to be made about what follows. Global conferences intended to find solutions to environmental problems, such as the Cop26 UN climate talks, have unfortunately been postponed. It is therefore imperative that, while the planet enjoys a respite, targeted discussions on green jobs and clean energy, building efficiency and strengthening natural infrastructure are held across the world by country leaders and environmental experts. 

Where the wild things are

While our species is in lockdown, wildlife has taken over and had the opportunity to reclaim their habitats, making the most of a planet uninhibited by humans. In San Francisco, coyotes, normally terrified of traffic, have been spotted on the Golden Gate Bridge. In Japan, the local deer have ventured from their home in Nara Park and are wandering the city. In Phang Nga, the southern province of Thailand, a record number of baby leatherback sea turtles have hatched with researchers attesting the lack of tourists to the hatching success. In the UK, cars and trucks annually take the lives of about 100,000 hedgehogs, 30,000 deer, 50,000 badgers and 100,000 foxes, as well as many other species of bird and insect. The annual death toll of roadkill will hopefully be substantially lower due to the significantly quieter roads.

In addition, the pandemic has demonstrated the deadly consequences of ignoring animal welfare standards. According to the United Nations Environment Programme, 75% of new infectious diseases come from animals, and it is widely supposed that the likely source of the pandemic was a wet market in Wuhan which traded in wild animals that do not have the same amount of regulation around them as animals which are eaten more regularly. Consequently, in the face of growing calls for a global ban on wet markets, China has started to address its stance on animal rights and welfare by banning the unregulated farming and consumption of live wildlife, which is expected to become law later this year.

A global cultural shift is needed in the way we view animals. It will not be easy to change culture attitudes or to enforce bans. However, to attempt to prevent another pandemic in the future, there must be a focus on causes as well as effects.

All the time in the world

In today's society, we are all-go, 24-hours a day. Our days are packed with hectic routines: going to the gym, school drop-offs, university, work, and socialising with friends and family. Plans have to be made way in advance and time is normally a luxury we cannot afford. Now, our routines are thrown up in the air and our favourite pastimes are generally incompatible with the current restrictions. Calendars are empty and we now have more time than we ever thought possible.

With all this free time comes an opportunity to spend more time on ourselves. People have embarked on new fitness regimes, dressmaking, jigsaw solving and copious amounts of banana bread baking! In March, Malmesbury-based Wentworth Wooden Jigsaw Company, saw jigsaw sales in the UK rocket by over 150%!

Of course, the NHS heroes and essential workers are still very much working and are out the frontline of this pandemic and we couldn't appreciate their efforts more. However, for those of us in lockdown, we have never had more time for some 'me time'. Everything you have put-off because you didn't 'have the time' you can now do – fix the cupboard door you've been putting off for months, learn a language, take up painting! Or just take a breath and enjoy this new slower way of life.

It's cool to be kind

Amidst the tragedy of COVID-19, there have also been heart-warming stories of human kindness and community spirit.

Those with spare accommodation have offered their properties to NHS workers in order to ease their fears that they will risk the lives of family members. Premier League club Chelsea has even offered NHS workers free accommodation at the Millennium Hotel at its Stamford Bridge ground, with the cost of the rooms covered by club owner Roman Abramovich.

Panic buying was at an all-time high at the start of the pandemic. This, and the socially distanced queues in place at supermarkets, have been especially hard on the more vulnerable members of society, some of whom are less able to get to the shops regularly. Supermarkets have responded by offering online delivery slots reserved for the elderly and vulnerable to make sure they don't miss out on essentials; neighbours, family and friends have also stepped up efforts to make sure the vulnerable are not going without.

However, being slightly on the older side didn't stop Captain Tom Moore. The 99-year-old army veteran pledged to walk 100 lengths of his garden to raise £1,000 for the NHS and became an international sensation. More than £13m was donated after Captain Tom's story captured hearts and inspired donors all around the world.

The new normal

There is no denying the huge and devasting impact COVID-19 has had on the world. However, as the Monty Python song “Always look on the bright side of life” says, we should make the best of what the crisis has given us.

However, it is important to remember that while the coronavirus has inadvertently given us these opportunities, they do not have to end when we eventually come out of lockdown and find a cure to the virus. This could be the human race's chance to become not only kinder and more caring to our fellow humans but to now take care of our planet and its animal inhabitants.

From community spirit to the earth's much needed human respite, it is important to remember that there is always a silver lining – even in the darkest of situations.

A typical catastrophe bond structure involves an insurer or reinsurer forming a special purpose vehicle (SPV) which issues bonds to capital market investors. The bondholder will sign up to a treaty of reinsurance for an underlying risk. The bondholder earns interest on the amount for the duration of the treaty. If the policy trigger (e.g. a hurricane or pandemic) occurs, then the money invested is paid from the SPV to the insurer, enabling it to deal with the relevant claims. If the policy term elapses without a trigger event taking place, then the initial sum invested is returned to the bondholder.

Why are they used? 

Catastrophe bonds are attractive to insurers because they provide access to a different pool of capital.  They give insurers an opportunity to distribute risk (as regulators require). If a reinsurer in the market is facing financial difficulties, the fallout will be less disruptive if some capacity that they might otherwise have reinsured is taken up by bonds (the funds from which are protected as a result of being held in an SPV).

Buyers that are interested in catastrophe bonds tend to include institutional investors such as pension and sovereign wealth funds. Catastrophe bonds are attractive to them as the returns do not (usually) correlate with traditional capital investments. Again, the bonds provide an opportunity to spread risk. Buyers reduce the chance of being severely impacted by a downturn in markets. 

One exception to the rule appears to be the spread of COVID-19. The pandemic has triggered a number of WHO catastrophe bonds and has already caused significant downturns in markets. The impact of COVID-19 has challenged the conventional wisdom that catastrophe bonds do not correlate with more traditional financial products. Despite this, many consider a hit to financial markets less likely to occur in the context of more traditional triggers such as floods or hurricanes. The impact of natural catastrophes tends to be focused on a limited geographical area and therefore not to have a considerable impact on the wider trends in markets.

How have they been performing?

The market for insurance-linked securities has had a buoyant few years. More than $11bn worth of catastrophe bonds were issued in 2018, bringing the total value to a new high of $36bn. One consequence of the steady increase in the use of catastrophe bonds over the past decade had been downward pressure on reinsurance rates. Reinsurers and bondholders have not been able to impose the increase in rates usually associated with a big year of losses, as the capacity in the market has increased, ahead of demand.

However in 2019 following a series of expensive natural disasters in in 2017 and 2018, issuances are believed to have slowed by as much as 35%. As bondholder demand appears to have slowed in 2019, we may see this trend for reinsurance rates begin to reverse.

What does the future hold for them?  

In the first quarter of 2018, 75.4% of all bonds were issued in Bermuda. The Bermudan regulator was one of the early adopters of a regulatory framework for ILS and has become the leading jurisdiction. Other newer markets are now vying for a piece of the ILS action by setting out their regulatory frameworks. For example, Singapore has passed legislation which aims to create favourable conditions for ILS, by giving the SPVs tax neutrality and providing a grant for the upfront costs of issuing.

As the ILS market becomes more mainstream, many insurers and reinsurers who are not yet offering bonds, have expressed their intention to launch SPVs. Whilst there may be price adjustments following a dip in bond issuances, the ILS market continues to be an important tool for insurers and investors.

Hannah Ridzuan-Allen

In France, this has already happened with the introduction of a new law protecting the right to disconnect for any employee using smartphones as part of their work. The law also obliges any French company of more than 50 employees to regulate the use of work-issued devices to ensure they are not used excessively. Under this new law the French Supreme Court exercised its new powers for the first time and ordered a company to compensate a former employee €60,000 for repeated contact with them over email and telephone outside normal working hours.  In a similar Irish case, the Irish court also found in an employee's favour and the EU is considering proposing the right to disconnect as a standalone human right.

A right to disconnect could be put into practice in various ways. Email inboxes could be locked after hours until the employee returns to their desk the next day. Companies could place a ban on calls to an employee's phone outside work hours, or implement a two-tier system in which, for the first hour after normal work hours, the employee can be contacted for urgent problems, but after the hour elapses they have officially disconnected and may not be contacted. The most extreme suggestion entails automatically deleting emails sent while the employee is out of office – though this could have significant commercial drawbacks in practice, particularly if a company has offices in multiple time zones.

There are clear benefits to a right to disconnect. Employees' wellbeing is likely to improve if they are able to totally separate themselves from work and enjoy downtime with no strings attached. It may also improve productivity if they know that they only have a set amount of time each day in which to complete their work. The elusive work/life balance could finally exist for some workers who are obliged to set aside time at the weekend in case their employer contacts them.

However, all is not clear-cut. The right to disconnect poses a significant threat to another critical wellbeing trend – flexible working. It is only relatively recently that the practice of allowing employees to work from home, or at hours that suit them, has become mainstream, and this is challenging at best without restricted access to portable technology. If people want to complete their daily work outside of traditional office hours – if they have parenting responsibilities, for example – then this law could thwart their flexible working capability. It could lead to a decline in productivity if people are unable to work at the most suitable time for them and some people may even suffer anxiety if prohibited from replying to important emails, especially if they have management duties and shoulder significant commercial risk for the company.

It's all very well aiming for a balance in communication, but the reality is that this may conflict with client expectations. This is particularly a problem for companies with international clients who are based several hours ahead or behind and may need to make urgent contact during their own business hours. Companies who implement such policies will need to consider the impact it may have on the quality of their client service.

The best solution might be a compromise: allowing employees the right to choose to disconnect without forcing them to or limiting their flexible working options as a result. Legislation may therefore still be a while off, though individual companies are free to implement these practices by choice as part of their own internal policy. As wellbeing and emotional health in the workplace become more and more prominent, their impact on traditional working practices is not to be underestimated!

Following a somewhat rocky year for UK politics, the RPC trainees are hoping for a quieter 2020. With the details of Brexit keeping politicians and the civil service occupied, it will come as a great relief to all of us that (if trainees are correct) the UK isn't about to go to war with Iran. However, as one politically astute trainee suggested, we are unlikely to see an end to proxy warfare any time soon. If you had a 2020 trip to the Gulf of Oman planned, you might want to think again.  

In the wake of Labour's dismal election results, the majority of trainees have played it safe and backed Keir Starmer to win the Labour leadership race.  One trainee predicted that the successful leadership candidate would be Diane Abbott. Could it be possible that (despite not running) Ms Abbott has won the hearts and minds of the Labour membership by smuggling a can of M&S Mojito mix onto the Overground? One Twitter user gushed that they had never felt more represented.

When asked about the most likely political scandal, trainees thought Boris Johnson and Jacob Rees Mogg were likely suspects. Other suggestions included a constitutional crisis when Harry & Megan enter the Love Island Villa (a potential Casa Amor special?) or a revelation that the EU referendum results turned out to be another statistics fudge. 

US Politics

For the thrill seekers amongst you, following US politics is like a rollercoaster that never ends – no matter how much you wish it would.  Amidst a colourful cast of weird and wonderful characters, including Adam "Shifty" Schiff, "Cryin' Chuck" Schumer, "Crazy Nancy" Pelosi and big T himself, our trainees considered how many Republicans, if any, would break party lines on the Senate impeachment hearing.  At the top end, one trainee thought five would turn their backs on the President whereas the majority thought only two or three would break ranks. It has since transpired that only one did.

This feeds into the next question our trainees considered: how many seats would the Republicans lose or gain in the election this year?  The RPC trainees were fairly split on this, with some predicting a handful of losses, others a handful of gains.  One trainee took a stab in the dark and predicted a Democratic surge with the Republicans losing 50 seats.  No matter the ultimate result, the real winners are those fortunate few whose election memes on social media go viral – earning fame and glory for a day or two.

The trainees also considered which candidate was most likely to win the Democratic Party presidential primaries.  Joe Biden was the trainees' favourite, clearly showing that even if your son is caught up in some (alleged) naughtiness in Ukraine, it can't hurt your chances too badly.  A couple felt some socialist pangs and fancied Bernie Sanders as the candidate to take it home for the Dems.  One dreamer believed in Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez's vision for America (despite not running), another allied themselves with Andrew Yang's "Yang Gang".

Legal

Now that the UK has left the EU, it seemed apt to ask the RPC trainees about their all-time favourite module at law school – EU law. The trainees were unanimous in their view that EU law modules are unlikely to be scrapped from the LLB or GDL courses. Our ever-practical trainees recognise that EU law is likely to remain relevant in a post-Brexit era, so it is probably wise that budding lawyers continue to get to grips with Factortame and Cassis de Djion.

Later this year, High Court sentencings on high-profile cases will be televised. This follows on from the routine broadcast of proceedings in the Supreme Court (find us a trainee who didn't watch 'bundle-gate' unfold in the Supreme Court prorogation proceedings last year). When asked whether televised High Court sentencings would get more views than Love Island in 2020, one trainee suggested this would only happen if the Defendants turn up in bikinis or trunks and the Judge delivers the verdict by text. Other trainees were more realistic and just said 'no'.

We also asked the RPC trainees whether trial-by-combat would be permitted. Some were hopeful, attracted by the realisation that this would mean a lot less bundling. Would trials be fought à la Gladiators with helmets, giant cotton ear buds, and a live courtroom audience?

Business

Greggs introduced a vegan sausage roll in January 2019. Some were happy that Greggs were providing a wider range of dietary options, some didn't care, and some breakfast TV hosts choked on their cornflakes at the idea. Whatever your view, the results from Greggs' perspective were hot and delicious: sales surpassed £1 billion for the first time and its market value surged by around 75% in 2019.

Following Greggs' 2019 successes, we decided to ask our trainees which fast food product would be the next to be successfully veganized. The Big Mac was a popular choice, as was the Chicken Legend (also from McDonald's) with the added challenge of vegan mayo. Quite why one trainee identified the Scotch egg – a product that literally consists of an egg wrapped in meat – as the next in line to be veganized currently escapes us. Finally, by far and away the most disturbing suggestion, was "chicken wings with recyclable bones." Incidentally, Recyclable Bones are the trainees' top tip for "Biggest Midwestern American Post-Metal Band" of 2020.

Many have started to examine their eating habits out of environmental concerns. Travel habits are also under the spotlight: Greta Thunberg's decision to sail from Europe to NYC to speak at the UN in September 2019 brought discussions around "flight shaming" into the mainstream. We asked our trainees if these concerns would mean that trains would replace planes as the principal means of international transport. Most trainees very strongly believed that they would not, citing convenience, expense and time. Despite a year of unprecedented environmental activism, the prevailing mood amongst the RPC trainees seems to be that the desire for a week in the sun will trump concerns over saving the planet. 

Tech

There's been a lot of hype around driverless cars over the last couple of years – will they reach the mass market in 2020? This question attracted a range of responses – from a pessimistic 'they are a danger to man and society' to a yes on the condition that 'they promise to parallel park successfully every time'. One trainee considered that people who have enough money to afford new technology are probably more likely to spend it on flashy supercars. Looks like that driverless DMC DeLorean is still very much in the future.

The trainees were slightly more optimistic about the prospects of seeing the first 3D printed organ transplant in 2020, with most of us believing that it would at least be practiced on animals this year. One pointed out that 3D printers have already been printing human flesh since 2016! However, the impact this may have on cosmetic surgeons' businesses wasn't ignored: another trainee said that the prospect of 3D printed noses would be enough to 'make them sweat'.

Entertainment

With Saturday night stalwart The X Factor clinging onto our screens for dear life, the trainees considered whether 2020 would finally be the year of the talent show format's demise. There were two main camps: desperate hope that it will be, or reluctant resignation that, alas, it may not. This was all except for one trainee, who believed that the talent show had never recovered after Irish dancing father-and-son pair on Britain's Got Talent in 2009. Fair play.

Podcasts are fast becoming the commuter's weapon of choice to battle the horror of the morning commute, so we asked the trainees what the must-hear podcast of 2020 would be. RPC's hotly anticipated new insurance podcast, 'Insurance Covered' was an obvious no-brainer, although we hold out hope that Lady Hale will host an exposé of the Supreme Court – perhaps featuring RPC as a special guest?!

Sports

The trainees have been blessed with plenty of exciting sporting events to predict in 2020, with the inaugural Hundred Cricket competition coming up, Liverpool's unbelievable Premier League season still to be interrupted by a loss and, of course the Tokyo Olympics.

The trainees did not come to a consensus on the number of medals that Team GB would win at the Olympics and Paralympics in Tokyo later this year, although they did agree that Dina Asher Smith would win a couple of medals in the sprints. The special mention of 2020 Sports predictions must go to one trainee who, clearly lacking any understanding of the medal system, has predicted that Team GB will win every single medal.

The trainees are perhaps naively optimistic with regards to Liverpool FC's chances of emulating the famous Preston North End Invincibles of 1888-1889 (and Arsenal) as the vast majority predicted that they will indeed go through the whole season unbeaten.  A few trainees predicted that Liverpool will be beaten this year, with (clearly 2 Arsenal fans) suggesting that Arsenal will put an end to the unbeaten season. One stickler for detail / classic lawyer-type has postulated that the question was not specific enough and Napoli have actually already beaten Liverpool this year. Finally, this witty group of trainees were united in asserting that the Oval Invincibles would win the Hundred as it's in the name.

The effect of this is devastating for airlines. British Airways, Cathay Pacific Airways, and Lufthansa were among the first airlines to cancel flights to mainland China. Even for the airlines that are still running flights to the country, there is a significant drop in demand as governments warn against travelling to China. It is also likely that we will also see a general decrease in demand for international travel as fears rise. The uncertainty in the market is reflected in changes in share prices. IAG, the parent company of British Airways, suffered from a share price drop of over 10% in late-January and Air France-KLM experienced a 6% drop. The International Air Transport Association hopes that the airline industry can bounce back, stating that "[e]ven in the outbreak of SARS, monthly international passenger traffic returned to its pre-crisis level within nine months^[2]". However, for the airlines' financials, nine months is still a considerable length of time and the impacts could last for longer.

It is just not airlines who are suffering from the decrease in travel. Hotels and the retail market are also severely affected. The Chinese Lunar New Year is normally the largest annual migration of people globally, but as cities have been put in lockdown, many people have had to cancel their planned holidays. Trip.com, which is China's largest travel agency, has been offering free cancellations on hotels, car rental and tourist tickets. Not only has this seen its profits dip, its share price has dropped by 18%. Chinese tourists offer a vast boost to retail figures in countries across the world. The luxury goods sector may particularly suffer from the drop in Chinese migration. The director of Bain's luxury practice has stated that "not only will Chinese people buy less domestically during the key New Year shopping season, they will also have to cancel trips abroad, during which they often buy luxury goods^[3]”. It is no surprise that there is real worry in the market, as Chinese buyers accounted for 90% of growth in the luxury goods sector in 2018 and are responsible for over one third of the value of luxury good purchases.

Companies with bases in China have had to take precautionary measures to reduce the risk of the coronavirus spreading, but these are steps which are damaging for business. Starbucks have closed over half of its 4,300 cafes in China, Disneyland has closed its theme parks in Shanghai and Hong Kong, and Apple has closed stores and restricted travel for its staff. The Chinese market accounted for 16% ($43.6bn) of Apple's revenue last year, and so the negative effects of a lockdown and reduced demand are likely to be seen. 

For companies like Apple, China's position as the biggest manufacturer and trader has severe consequences for business as new supply lines may need to be sourced. This is of real concern in the car market, with manufacturers such as Honda, Nissan and Renault all having large plants in Wuhan, as well as being reliant on parts produced across China.  

The true impact of coronavirus on the world's businesses is yet to be fully seen, but with China being responsible for one sixth of global economic output and its people being some of the biggest consumers, the world's reliance on China will be tested.

Exchanging information with new contacts is a business necessity. Tracking your contacts and marketing yourself are also important.  When faced with an ever-expanding network, what is the most efficient way to promote yourself and keep track of relationships?

Business cards appear to have limited usefulness in an era where it is easy to research and contact specific individuals that an organisation wishes to establish a relationship with.  However, having more opportunities to network is not the same as having better opportunities to network.

Convenience trumps all

LinkedIn and its competitors provide potential contacts with a convenient avenue for getting in touch with strangers, eliminating the need for both parties to be in the same place.  A user can research people of interest and establish a connection without any prior meeting.  In a situation like this, a business card would not appear to add much value and would arguably complicate the process.

We can define ourselves online.  We have the benefit of greater control over how we display our personal brand and discretion over the information we choose to associate ourselves with.  We can carefully sculpt an image of ourselves in a way that a face-to-face meeting cannot.  When individuals receive greater freedom to self-market, it may seem like an evolutionary step backwards to place reliance on anything other than an online profile.

In comparison, cards seem limiting and outdated.  A piece of paper can only carry a certain amount of information and an individual is reliant on surrounding conversation in determining whether to establish a relationship with someone.  

It's a card life

On the other hand, the act of giving and receiving business cards has greater interactivity than the one-sided nature of an online introduction.  Faces, mannerisms and cards leave an impression between parties, whereas a digital connection alone has little personality behind it.  A digital connection may have no prior physical interaction and may even be unwarranted.

Cards are useful to establish an instantaneous physical link and to provide a memento in a situation where access to professional social media is restricted.  They provide an avenue for future contact at busy events with lots of potential contacts.  Cards are more personal than a digital connection alone, but it may be thought that their uses have become increasingly niche.

A business card generally presents four pieces of information: name, role, contact details and organisation.  It does not provide any information about what an individual does or what their background is like. It is a bit of a gamble choosing to invest time with a contact that you ultimately do not know that much about.  It appears that a card's best use is as a physical memento, not as a means of introduction in itself.

An ace up your sleeve

Technology could make business cards more relevant, by combining the physical interactivity of classical media with the benefits and convenience of digitisation.

3D printers could provide greater opportunities for business cards to be tailored towards their holder.  Literally adding another dimension to a card opens doors to varied branding and the potential for a stronger first impression.  Different materials, colours, depths and even smells can work as a boon for a business looking to make an introduction.

Other big ideas which may change how we use business cards include the use of near-field communication ("NFC"), which can allow paper cards to exchange electronic information; cards with internal clocks, which can be used to set alerts and reminders for the receiving party; and with the aid of apps on phones, even augmented reality, which can create a unique impression on the recipient.  

For those looking to exploit technology trends (or fads) to create a memorable introduction, it must be noted that exchanging business cards ought to be a simple and quick process. The more cumbersome and complicated this process becomes, the less enthusiastic the reception is likely to be.

Conclusion

What makes a Christmas ad "successful" through the eyes of the public?

Successful Christmas ads traditionally showcase a number of common themes woven into a narrative: a loveable character or brand mascot; nostalgia; celebrities; famous soundtracks; children; and, of course, Christmas…

While there are a host of well-known ads, perhaps the best example for this year is the John Lewis and Waitrose advert, Excitable Edgar. The ad follows an adorable tiny dragon, befriended by a little girl, who has been ostracised from his medieval village due to his habit of setting fire to things accidentally. The advert ends with the dragon learning that his "flaw" could well be used to his advantage, as he reunites with the villagers by setting alight a Christmas pudding to a round of applause. In the background, Bastille sing a slow and moving cover of the song "Can't Fight this Feeling". The advert has proved so popular that Excitable Edgar teddies have been offered for sale online for close to 4x their original price.

However, this year some retailers and brands have distanced themselves from long, storytelling, tear-jerker ads and the results are still considered some of 2019's finest. Two well-received ads are the ad for Walkers Crisps which is simply a man fighting with Mariah Carey over a crisp and the popular Ikea ad which features old and worn ornaments rapping about how dirty the Christmas host's house is.

According to popular opinion on this year's Christmas ads, you should "go big" or "go funny".

Do Christmas ads boost sales?

The jury is still out on whether Christmas ads can boost sales, despite how popular they may be. Many Christmas ads don't even feature products for sale or showcase the retailer's/brand's name. In some cases, if you were to take away the logo at the end, you would be forgiven for having no idea which business was being advertised. Also, according to one ad agency, 89% of Christmas ads are immediately forgotten, casting further doubt on their effectiveness.

Despite these limitations, a John Lewis spokesman recently stated that its Christmas ads deliver 20 times the return on its original spend. However, not all Christmas ads are successful at boosting sales. A number of retailers, despite releasing tear-jerking Christmas ads, have experienced poor Christmas sales.   

According to Michael Cross, founder of Brightblue Consulting, on average, Christmas ads generate between £1.50 and £4.50 in profit for every pound spent. However, the performance of Christmas campaigns is less effective than those run at other times of the year, normally because of higher advertising costs.

As can be seen from above, Christmas ads are no sure-fire success story. Considering the vast amounts of money such ads cost, Christmas ads seem like an expensive and risky sale-boosting strategy. In fact, some have likened British retailers' competitive spending on Christmas ads to the space race because of the large amounts spent, despite the uncertain benefits.

Perhaps for this reason, retailers are now attempting to make their Christmas ad spending go further. For example, this year John Lewis and Waitrose released one single advert, rather than funding separate ads. Many retailers are also cutting costs by moving Christmas advertising online, rather than relying on expensive TV slots. However, while measures such as this mean that retailers get "more for their money", Christmas ad spending is still increasing year-on-year overall.

The takeaway

As noted above, despite how popular certain kinds of Christmas ads can be, it is unclear how effective they are at boosting sales. In light of the struggles faced by some High Street retailers, you would perhaps assume that many would cut back on Christmas ad spending. While some retailers are trying to get more out of their advertising for their money (e.g. by running campaigns online), the level of overall ad spending continues to increase year-on-year and this Christmas, a record-breaking £6.4bn will be spent on advertising. Christmas is clearly viewed as a make-or-break time of year for retailers and perhaps this is the reason retailers continue to happily spend so much money on festive ads in the hope that its investments will translate into jolly, plump figures on P&L sheets.

Does recycling make a difference?

Effective recycling can do a lot to mitigate human impact on the environment. The energy required to make one aluminium can from raw materials could produce up to twenty recycled cans. Glass placed in landfill will never biodegrade, and yet when recycled the same glass can be used repeatedly to make new bottles. Paper recycling emits 70% less carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gasses than the process of making paper from scratch. 

Why should businesses be interested in recycling?

Whilst many businesses have a "profit is king" outlook, corporate culture is increasingly engaging in topics that its shareholders and employees consider important. The revised UK Stewardship Code, updated in October of this year, sets out good practice on how institutional investors should engage with companies and specifically highlights environmental issues as a focus. A business which has a plan to control its environmental footprint will be more attractive to a socially-conscious shareholder or an eco-friendly fund. It may also impress the prospective millennial workforce, a generation that increasingly seeks to work within businesses that reflect their values.  

Eco-friendly initiatives can also align with the desire to bolster the bottom line, not only from the perspective of brand impact, but also in terms of cost. Under the Landfill Tax scheme it can cost considerably more to dispose of a bag of landfill than a bag of recycling. Certain local authorities accept separated recycling free of charge to encourage the practice.   

What can be done better? 

A series of recent news articles focused on the fact that the UK ships as much as two thirds of its plastic waste overseas, where a proportion of it may be burned, rather than recycled. This is often as a result of the expense of dealing with contaminated recycling. Malaysia has announced that it will no longer be accepting recycling from other countries, having faced problems with the toxic smoke produced from the illegal burning of plastic. China has also begun to reject certain types of waste, potentially causing the costs of recycling to rocket.

So called 'dirty recycling' (where materials are contaminated with food or other substances) is the cause of a great deal of the expense associated with recycling. In order to minimise this, employees need to be more careful with what they put into the recycling bin. A dirty food container can ruin a whole batch of recycling. A plastic bag, can and often will clog up the machines which do the sorting, requiring time consuming and expensive human intervention. 

Where businesses have recycling initiatives, it may be worth holding training, or at least having clear and easily legible guidelines next to the various bins. It could also be worth using statistics to make it clear that unless everyone follows the rules, co-workers could be frustrating one another's efforts. There is evidence that increasing the convenience of office recycling (for example by installing more bins) can increase rates by around 20%. 

Arguably there is probably a lot more that businesses can do to reduce and reuse (remember that old gem of a catchy slogan?). This might mean having printers set up to print double-sided or ensuring that the café minimises food waste and provides reusable cutlery, cups and plates.

Whilst recycling might not be a panacea for our environmental woes – there are plenty of ways that offices can do more to make a difference. If your business can boost its image at the same time, what is there to lose? 

Equine law deals with a wide range of legal areas from personal injury to commercial disputes. It encompasses tort and contract as much as property or insurance law. This article focuses on a just a selection of those areas in which we have seen growth - for illustrative purposes.

To assist, it is useful to understand the reasons for its recent increase in emphasis, and what you might expect to see in an equine law practice.

Rise in popularity…

Horse-riding is one of the most popular sports in the UK, with the number of horses in our fields rising yearly. According to an article published in the Law Society Gazette in 2008, around £4bn a year is spent on horses in Britain. In 1999, there were 1.2 million horses in the UK. However, the popularity of the sport has meant that this number has increased, with the British Equine Trade Association (BETA) confirming in 2005/6 that just over four million people are taking to the saddle every year. The survey is now somewhat dated, but the 2012 London Olympics helped increase the popularity of the sport, and seven years on this trend does not appear to have changed. According to the British Horse Society, there has been a steady increase in horse riding since 2014 and regular riders are now estimated to have reached 1.8 million, having risen from 1.3 million in 2014. With the increase in participation in equestrian sports, there is an ever increasing need for legal advisers who are familiar with the environment in which riders and horse owners operate in.

… and the rise in regulation

Rules and regulations which govern equine activities are well developed and the increase in participation has seen an increase in matters such as livery, insurance, doping, stable management, integrity issues, and health and safety.

One example of such an issue which commonly occurs would be where a horse is sold through an agent. If the agent makes untrue statements to the buyer, the seller will be liable for those statements and a claim can be brought against the seller of the horse. With a considerable amount of money invested in eventing and racing, misrepresentation has become a more common cause of action for many buyers alleging that sellers and their agents have sold unfit horses.

A growing area of equine law concerns regulatory cases brought under the Animal Welfare Act 2006. In 2017 the RSPCA reported at least 17,000 cases of animal cruelty of which at least 4,923 related to abuse against horses in Yorkshire alone. Cases often deal with situations where horses have been mistreated, possibly the result of individual owners or riding schools acquiring horses without necessarily having the facilities or the staff to care for them.

Personal injury litigation

Another increasing area of equine work concerns personal injury claims against schools and other riding venues, often involving injuries occurring during competitions. Claimants in such cases are aided by the strict liability provisions in the Animals Act 1971 which make a horse owner responsible for any injury or damage caused by their horse, even where the owner has not been negligent. The relevant section is Section 2(2) of the Animals Act 1971 which reads as follows:

Where any damage is caused by an animal which does not belong to a dangerous species, a keeper of the animal is liable for the damage, ... if (b) the likelihood of the damage or of its being severe was due to the characteristics of the animal which are not normally found in animals of the same species or are not normally so found except at particular times or in particular circumstances and (c) those characteristics were known to the keeper or were at any time known to a person who at that time had charge of the animal as at that keeper's servant...

In 2003, the House of Lords established in the case of Mirvahedy v Henley [2003] 2 A.C. 491 that the keeper of an animal could be strictly liable for damage that resulted from behaviour which was in no way abnormal for an animal of that species, in particular circumstances. The case involved the defendant's horses escaping from the field, resulting in an accident with the claimant's car. At the time it was anticipated that the decision would cause an increase in claims under the Animals Act. Certainly the effect of the decision was to raise awareness about the ability to claim for horse-related injury or damage.

However, whilst Mirvahedy prompted further claims, subsequent case law has emphasised the limits of liability under the Act. Two notable examples are Goldsmith v Patchcott [2012] EWCA Civ 183 and Freeman v Higher Park Farm [208] EWCA Civ 1185. In Goldsmith, the claimant was thrown off a horse whilst she was testing it. She was told by the seller that the horse required an experienced rider. The court decided that by riding it anyway, the claimant had accepted the risks involved. The case of Freeman presented similar facts. The claimant hired a horse for a hack. She was an experienced rider and fell off when the horse bucked twice before cantering. The court agreed that bucking is a common behaviour for horses that are startled and the claimant knew what risks she was running. The Act contains a statutory defence at section 5(2) preventing liability where damage is suffered by someone who voluntarily accepted the risk.

The Mirvahedy ruling was also considered in the decision in Clark v Bowlt [2006] EWCA Civ 978 where the claimant had fallen from a horse hired to her by the defendant. At first instance, it was found that although neither party was negligent, the defendant was strictly liable under the Animals Act 1971. The Court of Appeal, however, disagreed with the ruling and considered the scope of the section 2 duty had been misapplied. The damage in this case was likely to be severe because of the weight of the horse. The judge had failed to consider whether the horse's weight was an unusual characteristic in an animal of that species. Had he done so, he would have concluded it was not, and section 2(2)(b) of the Act would not have been satisfied. As one of the Appeal Court judges put it "section 2(2) is not intended to render the keepers of domesticated animals routinely liable for damage which results from characteristics common to the species. It requires something particular, and there was nothing of the specified kind to render the keeper liable here".

Whilst these cases demonstrate that the Animals Act 1971 is not necessarily a straightforward route to liability, they are illustrative of a trend towards litigation. The increasing popularity of the sport together with an increased appetite for commercial litigation, regulatory action and nuances of the strict liability regime applicable to animal-related injuries, seems likely to lead to opportunities for equine law specialists. The increase in sports betting on horses and doping will also potentially cause an increase in sport-related equine matters.

• staff stress levels reduced from 45% to 38%;

• an additional 24% of employees felt they could successfully balance their work and personal lives;

• overall work satisfaction increased by 5%;

• productivity has improved by 20%; and

• overall profits have increased.

In fact, the business has generated new clients as a result of the change with over 400 organisations seeking its advice on how to introduce a four day week into their businesses.  

A firm closer to home which has also made the change is Pursuit Marketing, based in Glasgow. The firm did this after realising that those on reduced working hours were actually 17% more productive. This is in line with evidence comparing countries across the EU, which shows that despite the British working four weeks more per year than workers in Germany, they are less productive. The change to a four day working week has proven to be a success for Pursuit Marketing; not only has productivity increased by 30%, sickness leave is at an all-time low and they have saved costs on recruiters due to being inundated with applicants. 

There is the risk that after the excitement of such a change, staff could become complacent as a four day week simply becomes the norm. However, complacency is a risk that all businesses face, no matter how long the week is, and it can be addressed by ensuring individual teams have clear plans and goals. The switch to a four day week could be the change that businesses need in order to better organise their workforce and workload.

The environment may also be thanking businesses for the change. Depending on what staff do with their additional day off, the individuals' carbon footprints may be reduced by removing commuter pollution. There will also be a reduction in electricity and gas usage by businesses as no-one will be in the office on a Friday. This will have serious cost benefits for the firms as office costs could be reduced by up to 20%.

However, not all businesses think it would work. The Wellcome Trust toyed with the idea of switching to a four day week but decided against it. The main reasons it gave for not going ahead with the change were that employees were worried about their workload being squeezed into just four days, and that it could distract the charity from doing its fundamental work.   

With Labour thinking about how the idea could fit into its policy programme, there are concerns that it could lead to a two-tier economy. The switch would be easier for some sectors than others. Businesses that operate in the financial, consulting or marketing sectors, for example, may find the switch to be beneficial. However, in sectors such as healthcare and retail it could be rather unrealistic because more staff would need to be hired to fill in the gaps. Therefore, there could be one tier of the elite group of workers who have the benefit of only having to work four days a week, and then another tier of workers whose jobs do not allow them this luxury.

But perhaps this two-tier economy already exists? Some jobs enable workers to work 9am until 5pm, Monday to Friday, while others require staff to work night-shifts and weekends. If a four day week could provide huge benefits for some businesses and workers, why not give it a go.

The Prestige (of the film industry)

Stephen Spielberg said of the Netflix controversy that "once you commit to a television format, you're a TV movie." This was true of Okja, which was released on Netflix on the same day that it was released (briefly) in cinemas. This strategy, known as the "day-and-date" release, where films are distributed in the cinema and online on the same day, represents a threat to the film industry as it draws customers away from the cinema and towards the television screens. As a result, production companies and film exhibitors believe that streaming services such as Netflix should be considered as television companies and therefore their films should not qualify for film festivals.

Okja's reception at the Cannes film festival was the catalyst for Fremaux, the artistic director, changing the eligibility rules for the Palme d'Or award, essentially banning all Netflix films. This was an inevitable outcome - the cinema industry was protecting itself from the online disruptor. As far as the film industry was concerned, Netflix had to support the film industry by releasing the films in cinemas before releasing them on their own platform. Netflix would have to play by their rules in order to be able to compete for the industry awards.  

Law Abiding Citizen

In response to this, Netflix did indeed play by the rules and released Roma in cinemas, before it was released on the streaming service, in Los Angeles – albeit only for three weeks and to only 100 cinemas globally. This is because the criteria for eligibility according to Rule Two of the Oscars Bylaws is that films must be shown in a Los Angeles County cinema, with paid admission, for a qualifying run of at least seven consecutive days. Some commentators view this as a clear strategic move by Netflix, on the basis that their approach to the theatrical release of their films appears to be simply part of their marketing expenses.  Given that their Oscars campaign reached $25 million, the small theatrical release would form a barely significant part of that expense. As Richard Broughton (an analyst at Ampere) views it, Netflix are abiding with the "letter of the law if not perhaps the spirit."

Whether the Oscars wish to revisit their regulations to obligate Netflix and other streaming services to reflect current film industry norms, such as releasing a film for longer and in more cinemas, remains to be seen.

Perfect Strangers

It will be interesting to see how Netflix continues to adjust, as they certainly will not want a repeat of the Cannes Film Festival next year. Netflix need to be competing in film festivals, both to attract directors and actors who want their art to be critically acclaimed and rewarded, but more importantly, to be seen by consumers as producing the best work.

It is of no surprise that Netflix has taken more of an interest in competing in the Oscars since Amazon won two Oscars for Best Actor and Best Original Screenplay with 'Manchester by the Sea'. Netflix will, of course, be delighted that Roma won 3 Oscars. The Oscars (and the film industry), as outlined in our first article of the series, need to modernise. Audience levels have dipped recently, with Trump famously tweeting that the 2018 Oscars were the "lowest rated in HISTORY." The introduction of widely watched films on Netflix may increase the viewership of these numbers. However, given that the UK box office is on track for its best year since 1971, and that Netflix has still not revealed viewership numbers, perhaps Netflix and other platforms are not as much of a threat as the film industry fears, and the film industry is just adapting rather than on the brink of downfall.

Before the winners are announced (correctly most of the time) the entire first hour of the event is focused on the red carpet. And the question every interviewer asks is 'who are you wearing?' Viewers are inundated with different designers, styles and outfits.

And when it comes to the viewers, there are plenty of them. Although only 29.6 million people tuned into the Oscars in 2019, viewing figures reached 43 million in 2014. Furthermore, the Oscars are watched not only by fashionistas, but also by the average consumer, which gives designers the chance to become household names. For example, Gwyneth Paltrow's 1999 Ralph Lauren dress, cemented the brand as a household name.

The likes of Ralph Lauren, Dior, and Tom Ford are not expecting every viewer to suddenly go and buy their clothing, which to the majority is unaffordable. But these designers also stock fragrances, make-up, and accessories which the average consumer may then buy in an attempt to replicate Hollywood glamour. These smaller purchases can quickly add up. Given that the global fragrance and deodorant market is set to hit $92 billion by 2024, it would be foolish not to want a slice of the market. Therefore, for an emerging designer, getting it right on the red carpet can be a key stepping stone to success. Or as the fashion editor of Allure put it, 'for a young designer, a photo of a big celebrity in their design on a best-dressed list can be completely career-making.'

Will it impact the celebrity's acting career?

Similarly, a celebrity can develop a brand and identity based upon what they wear at the Oscars and other awards ceremonies. And in this industry, brand is critically important. Sienna Miller's stylist Kate Young has gone as far to claim that Sienna's screen renaissance was thanks to her style revival.

For the established celebrities, the impact of the list is far less important. However, an emerging celebrity's success on the list can be an effective launch-pad for brand deals. A prime example is Lupita Nyong'o, who won the Best Supporting Actress Award back in 2012 and later went on to win contracts with Lancôme and Prada after repeated success on the best dressed lists. Her brand became synonymous with style and sophistication and as a result, fashion and makeup brands wanted her to promote their products.

It can also lead to further roles for celebrities. Increased media coverage and a growing social media following ensure that a celebrity's Hollywood profile becomes ever more valuable to casting directors. And as crude as it may be, popular celebrities sell cinema tickets.

Does doing badly matter?

The old saying of 'all publicity is good publicity' can hold truth in this context. It is quite possible for a celebrity and designer to build an effective brand from deliberately being known as the worst dressed, as it may be viewed as rebellious, individual, and authentic. Or as a celebrity stylist claimed, 'being on a worst dressed list is a powerful tool to grab headlines. I sure some people actively look to be on worst dressed lists as it can put you on the map.'

Whatever your opinion may be on the best and worst dressed lists at the Oscars, it is undeniable that they can have a huge commercial impact on the brand of a celebrity or designer. So although on the surface the lists may appear light-hearted and trivial, they also represent an effective advertising tool for establishing brand awareness.

• 1973 - Marlon Brando declined to accept his Best Actor Oscar for The Godfather, and instead sent Sacheen Littlefeather, president of the National Native American Affirmative Image Committee, to protest the stereotypical portrayal of Native Americans in film and television. The audience booed Brando for criticising the Academy, and the Academy subsequently banned winners from sending proxies to accept.

• 1993 - Susan Sarandon and Tim Robbins used their presenting slot to protest the U.S Government's detention of HIV-positive Haitian refugees at Guantanamo Bay. The Academy said the stunt was 'outrageous', 'distasteful' and 'dishonest', and banned the pair from attending future Oscars. Richard Gere was also banned for speaking out regarding the mistreatment of Tibetans at the hands of the Chinese Government. All three were allowed to return to the awards years later.

• 2003 - Michael Moore lambasted George W. Bush for the Iraq War which had commenced only days prior, stating 'we have a man sending us to war for fictitious reasons… Shame on you, Mr Bush, shame on you'. This was met with boos from the audience and Moore was promptly played off stage by the orchestra.

• 2009 - when accepting his Best Actor award for Milk, Sean Penn spoke out against 'Prop 8', a piece of legislation recently passed in California which effectively banned gay marriage, stating 'we've got to have equal rights for everyone'. This was met with wide applause from the audience.

• 2018 – last year politics and current affairs seemed to dominate the whole show: host Jimmy Kimmel took swipes at both President Trump and Vice President Pence in his opening monologue; presenters Lupita Nyong'o and Kumail Nanjiani spoke out to support America's 'Dreamers'; and Frances McDormand asked every female nominee to stand during her acceptance speech to urge further inclusion in Hollywood. These moments were met with support and applause, showcasing the shift in attitude from the Academy Awards of old.

Defamation?

While political (and sometimes controversial) speeches now seem to be accepted by the Academy as part of the status quo of the Oscars, the nature of some of the comments made on stage could be argued by some as verging on defamation.

The Oscars will take place in the Dolby Theatre in Los Angeles on 24 February 2019. The question of whether any of the speeches on the night will amount to defamation will be a question of federal and Californian state law. Criticisms directed at particular celebrities or politicians are unlikely to result in a claim for defamation, due to the requirement for actual malice on the part of the defendant where the claimant is a public figure. To show actual malice the claimant must prove that the defendant acted with knowledge of the falsity of the defamatory statement or reckless disregard for whether it was true.

First amendment rights are taken very seriously in the US and a high level of protection is afforded to individuals who make potentially defamatory statements about public figures. The requirement for actual malice, as well as the burden of proof lying with the claimant to establish the falsity of the defamatory statement indicates the broadly "pro-speech" nature of American defamation law.

In the UK, by contrast, the falsity of a defamatory statement is presumed, with truth being a defence to be pleaded and proved by the defendant. Further there is no requirement to prove actual malice or even negligence on the part of the defendant. The claimant does not need to establish any sort of intention to defame on behalf of the defendant. A claimant will succeed in a defamation claim if they can prove that a statement was defamatory and the defendant is unable to establish a defence.

The tighter UK defamation laws may explain why everyone was on their best behaviour at the Baftas. The winners at the Oscars may take a few more risks with their speeches without too much concern that they will end up in court.

The first Academy Awards ceremony was held in 1929 at the Hotel Roosevelt in Hollywood. This year, the Academy will host its 91st ceremony. Indeed, the Awards are nearly as old as the US film industry itself and this has led to the Awards becoming almost synonymous with it. Over the years, many Hollywood legends have won Academy Awards, including Audrey Hepburn, Elizabeth Taylor and Marlon Brando. The Awards are long-established, which contributes to the fact that the Oscars are seen as traditional and prestigious. However, there is a downside to this aspect of the Oscars brand. The Awards have been criticised as being old-fashioned and not reflective of modern values. For example, many people feel that there is not enough racial diversity among groups of award nominees. Another criticism relates to gender equality which led, in 2018, to many award attendees wearing a 'Time's Up' pin to highlight the need for modernisation of the awards and the film industry more generally.

The statuette

The statuette is symbolic of the Oscars and is instantly recognisable. One of the ways the Academy has prevented the dilution of its brand is through restricting the sale of award statuettes. Since 1951, every award winner has been required to sign an agreement giving the Academy a right of first refusal. A prohibition on the sale of the statuettes also forms part of the Academy's bylaw. Accordingly, if ever a person were to offer their statuette on the open market, they must first offer it to the Academy for a nominal price, which used to be $10 but has more recently been reduced to $1. The Academy has been scrupulous to enforce its right to the statuettes. In 2015, a Los Angeles superior court judge prevented a winner's relative from selling their statuette and upheld the Academy's bylaw. Even though the award had originally been won eight years before the Academy introduced its bylaw, it was found that the bylaw still applied because the winner had retained their membership of the Academy. Ultimately, by making the statuettes harder to get hold of, the Academy protects the rarity of the statues and therefore the association that they are exceptional, important and unique, like the accolades they represent.

The Academy protects the copyright to the statuettes with equal rigour. Most notably, the Academy sued to prevent party rentals of 8-foot faux Oscar statuettes and it took legal action against a chocolatier for making an Oscar-shaped chocolate. In 1991, the US 9th Circuit Court of Appeal ruled that the statuette was not part of the public domain and was protected under federal copyright laws, stating: "We conclude that the Academy's sleek, muscular gold statuette known as 'Oscar', which is recognized [sic] worldwide as a distinctive symbol of outstanding achievement in film ... is entitled to protection". By enforcing its copyright, the Academy is more able to control public perception of the Awards to ensure that they are held in high esteem.

The name

Nobody knows why the Academy Awards began to be called the Oscars. One theory is that Bette Davis, who was a president of the Academy, named the statuette after her first husband. Alternatively, Margaret Herrick, who was the Academy's Executive Secretary, allegedly stated in 1931 that the statuette reminded her of her 'Uncle Oscar' and the name stuck. Despite its unclear origins, the name is memorable and unique. As such, the name has been afforded protection against its use outside of the Academy. For example, the Academy sued the website “Oscarwatch,” in 2007 for trademark infringement. Similarly, a lawsuit was brought against an Italian TV station which tried to broadcast its own “Wine Oscars,” “TV Oscars,” “Fashion Oscars” and “Theater Oscars [sic]". The message from the Academy was clear: no imitations allowed.

By protecting the use of the name, the Academy has ensured that the word 'Oscars' is associated with the Academy Awards only and that no one else can free ride on the back of publicity surrounding the awards and thereby limit the effectiveness of the Academy's own publicity.

The whole picture

The Oscars' brand is multifaceted and involves the interplay of the Award's history, its symbolic statuette and its unique yet familiar name, among other things. Above all, comparing the Oscars to other awards ceremonies, its brand stands for exclusivity, tradition and prestige (and that's something not even Seth McFarlane could change after his questionable 2013 sing-song).

What is hyper-personalisation?

Through a combination of personal data and artificial intelligence, brands are advertising to the individual and investing time into developing 'personal' brand values. The concept of 'segment-of-one' branding has become widespread. This technique identifies clusters of individuals and their common traits in order to provide tailor-made advertisements.

By enhancing a corporation's ability to engage with its consumers, hyper-personalisation helps to create brand affinity. This is critical in a market where the average consumer now expects a level of purpose behind a brand, ranging from its impact on the local community to the way it interacts with customers.

The success stories

Coca-Cola's 'Share a Coke' campaign in 2013 provides the perfect example of successful hyper-personalisation. Coca-Cola replaced their logo with some of the UK's most popular names and subsequently sold over 150 million personalised bottles. Other household brands, such as Nutella and Marmite, have been quick to follow in Coca-Cola's footsteps.

More recently, Unilever's purpose-driven brands have accounted for more than 60% of its growth and are expanding over 50% faster than the rest of the business. Their Axe brand has focused upon its aim to 'help broaden the definition of masculinity'. This has expanded their reach by appealing to an audience concerned with a different conversation on masculinity. Unilever demonstrates that in an environment where markets are saturated with similar products, purpose can be a vital component of brand growth.

A platform for change

As hyper-personalisation becomes an increasingly vital component of customer engagement, corporations must work harder to attract the "empowered" modern-day consumer. Corporations now need to not only discover their customer's birthdays and holiday plans, but keep in mind their political leanings.

Millennials and Generation Z look to brand values which align with their own when buying. As a result, corporations have politicised their advertisement campaigns to meet the values of their target demographic. For example, Nike recently utilised Colin Kaepernick, the NFL quarterback famous for taking a stance in the Black Lives Matter movement, in their thirtieth anniversary Just Do It Campaign. This campaign was created in order to align themselves with those consumers that stand with Kaepernick. In this way, corporations are increasing their propensity to appeal to their customers. This form of personalisation has proved highly successful.

Representation through advertising

As the bid for corporations to out-compete one another continues to grow, hyper-personalization has developed to dizzying heights. It started with just our names and birthdays, now it's our political affiliations and social consciences. The question remains, just how far will corporations go in a bid to capture their market and create brand 'value'?

And where does the law come in?

Trust. In other words, ensuring that customers know their data is safe and under their control. Which leads us to GDPR…the need for strong data controls, and (critically) transparency, has never been higher.

The country appears as divided as ever, with 54% of our trainees predicting another referendum in 2018. One particularly cheerful contributor suggests that we will be stuck in an endless cycle of voting on Brexit forever.

As if that wasn't enough excitement, trainees almost unanimously predict that 2019 will see the UK's largest protests yet. Perhaps reassuringly, they think the crowds will hold off until it is a little less chilly out.

The trainees seem almost as unsure of Theresa May's future as her own party. One trainee predicted that she will be gone by the time that this article was published (and indeed, she has faced a vote of no confidence). Another predicts that she will make it to 2019 and then disappear, ready for a Gary Barlow-like comeback in 2030. What the trainees haven't mentioned is whether any of the Cabinet Members will ditch the band and go solo (Robbie Williams-style), reaching the top job as Prime Minister.

US Politics:

US politics was always going to bring up some interesting predictions. Debate erupted amongst the trainees over who would be chosen as the Democratic challenger for the next presidential election. The favourite was Beto O'Rourke, although there was a vocal minority betting on Kim Kardashian. One trainee picked a more leftfield candidate saying: "I wonder if maybe Jordan Peele doing his impression of Obama could run?"

Will a seat become vacant on the US Supreme Court? According to the trainees, almost certainly not. However, this question did prompt concern over the health of the iconic Ruth Bader Ginsburg who was recently released from hospital following surgery to remove cancerous growths from her lung.  

As for whether President Trump and Kim Jong-un will meet again, the jury is out. We have some trainees predicting that there is no chance of that happening and some trainees being sure they will meet again. This will be one to watch in 2019.

Legal and Business:

RPC trainees are fairly unanimous in their view that the FCA will not start to regulate cryptocurrencies in 2019. It is hard to say whether this reflects a vast well of insider knowledge, or just a general belief that the crypto bubble has burst, but the consensus is very much that the UK will maintain its 'watch and wait' approach to crypto assets in 2019. RPC's self-appointed (and self-admittedly vastly underqualified) Trainee CryptoRep forecasts more crypto fraud-related litigation, despite the lack of further regulation.

The various economic Nostradamuses (Nostradami?) at RPC are reasonably sanguine about the value of the pound over the coming year, with only the most pessimistic believing it will fall below €1. The trainees are cautiously optimistic about the economic outlook in general, although most feel that if there is a no deal Brexit, there will be serious consequences.

The RPC trainees were also canvassed on who would replace Lord Sumption on the Supreme Court, in spite of the fact that Sales LJ had been announced as his replacement in June 2018. Was this a devilishly clever trick question designed to test the RPC trainees' awareness of contemporary judicial appointments, or had the trainee who asked the question just failed to do even the most cursory research? It is hard to say. Either way, only one trainee hit the nail on the head and most responded with tongue in cheek suggestions featuring some of their favourite (and presumably not so favourite) Lords from the worlds of film and television, including Lords Sugar and Voldemort.

Tech:

Driverless cars continue to be a topic of conversation, with almost all of the trainees predicting that there will be an increase in driverless cars on the roads alongside our current manuals by the end of the year (though not necessarily in Europe). Good news for those of us who still have a green licence! Though testing has been carried out on public roads, there are currently only a small number of places across the world where consumers can 'drive' the automated machines.

Turning to other modes of transport, the trainees shared mixed predictions (and opinions!) on whether the ban on electric scooters in London would be lifted. One trainee is hopeful for the introduction of 'Uber Scooters'.

Elsewhere, in the world of social media almost all trainees predicted that the number of active Facebook users would drop in 2019. However, we're sure that Facebook will continue to exist as a prime social platform given that most trainees predicted that there will be at least 2 billion active users. That is over one quarter of the world's population! It will be a year to watch for Facebook, as it diversifies to cover products such as 'Portal', a voice enabled video calling system.  

Entertainment:

'Meghan mania' looks set to continue in 2019 with Prince Harry and the Duchess of Sussex expecting their first child. Predictions on potential names were varied, with only Alexander/Alexandra being suggested twice. Honourable mentions must also go to Hegan, Baby Shark, Chardonnay, and Sparkle.

Millennials' dreams came true when the Spice Girls announced another reunion tour (minus Posh Spice). With 'girl power' back in the air, the trainees have predicted some other comebacks for 2019. If we are correct, then you should expect to see Destiny's Child, Blue, One Direction, and Oasis all dropping new albums and announcing tours over the next 12 months.

Finally, as social media influencers continue to impact brands, we asked the trainees to predict the most popular Instagram hashtag for 2019. Of course, #LifeInALawFirm and #RPC both made the list. Some of the conscientious lawyers amongst us also predicted #ad, in order to stay on the right side of the ASA.  However, the more likely option of #selfie was the most popular choice… #LetMeTakeASelfie

Sport:

The trainees are far more optimistic about the England women's chances of winning the World Cup, than they were of the men's last year, with all but one trainee predicting that captain Steph Houghton would lead England to the semi-finals. A few trainees have even forecast that Phil Neville will 'bring it home' and one trainee believes that the 'Reggae Girlz' , Jamaica's team, will win.

The trainees are not so hopeful for the England men's rugby team this autumn in Tokyo, as England have only been chosen to win by one trainee. The majority of predictions have been safe bets as New Zealand rank as the clear favourite amongst the trainees.

Finally, on the cynical question of how many Premier League, English Football league, National League and Scottish Premiership managers will be sacked in 2019, there has been a broad range of answers from 4 to 80 with a certain trainee already correctly predicting that Jose Mourinho would receive his P45.

UK Politics:

When it comes to the economy, the trainees were right on the money. The UK avoided a recession despite Brexit uncertainty and modest consumer spending. As of the third quarter, the UK economy had grown 1.5% year on year. Sadly, this was below the average for both the EU and the OECD.

The trainees also correctly predicted that Jeremy Corbyn wouldn't make it to 10 Downing Street. When the country went to the polls in May for the local elections, Labour saw a less than emphatic gain of 79 seats. On the other side of the House, it was a tough year for Theresa May, who saw her leadership criticised almost as heavily as her dance moves. The predicted return of David Miliband never materialised, but who knows what 2019 holds.

US Politics:

Happily, none of the more pessimistic predictions have come to pass. There was no pre-emptive nuclear strike by the United States, which likely avoided both political and nuclear fallout. President Trump and Kim Jong-un did meet in June 2018; the first time leaders of the US and North Korea had ever met. Both stated their desire to move towards less hostile future relations and it will be interesting to see what long term effects the meeting will have.

The trainees correctly anticipated that the Republican majorities in the Senate and House were at risk in the 2018 mid-term elections. Democrats took control of the House, but Republicans just retained control in the Senate. No one predicted how many celebrities would try to use their influence ahead of the election – Taylor Swift, Rihanna and even Justin Bieber all got on board to encourage people to vote. 

The trainees were correct when they predicted that President Trump would be crossing the pond in 2018. As anticipated, the visit prompted protests across the UK (who can forget the Trump Baby – was it disrespectful or is Trump fair game?). The President seemed to take it in his stride and ended his visit with a few ‘tips’ for Theresa May on Brexit and how he would have conducted the negotiations.

Legal and Business:

With incredible foresight, our trainees correctly predicted that concerns over Brexit would continue to dominate legal and business discussions in 2018. Most were right in assuming that the wrangling over the terms of Britain's exit from the EU would continue into 2019.

A few were more optimistic, believing that any deal put forward by the Prime Minister would be accepted on the basis "it's all gone too far for anyone not to." Theresa May's postponement of the vote on the Brexit deal in early December and the subsequent leadership challenge she faced showed just how much further there is to go before a deal is reached.

Following the delay to the vote on the Brexit deal, the pound fell to its lowest value for 18 months, as predicted by our trainees. Although given this happened in December, it seems that the cost of summer holidays – one of the key economic concerns for trainees at the start of last year – would have been largely unaffected by this fall.

Tech:

As our trainees predicted, the value of bitcoin continued to fall in 2018, and our clever lot weren't that far off guessing the value of one bitcoin on NYE 2018. The average prediction was £3,564.57, whilst the actual value was £2892.94. At the time of writing (first disclaimer of this year), the current value of one bitcoin was £3,047.15 so even closer to the mark!

Elsewhere, it seems that the trainees were a little too optimistic about 2018's technological developments. Enhanced digital assistants continued to grow in sales throughout the year, but sadly still require people to get up. Driverless vehicles do exist, but haven't yet replaced our trusty old manuals. And, worst of all, we can confirm that automated bundling was not introduced at RPC.

Entertainment:

'Meghan mania' was all the rage back in May with the Duchess of Sussex getting 42% more search traffic than Brexit in the build up to her wedding with Prince Harry. The trainees had predicted viewing figures would reach the eye-watering heights of 3 billion; however, the newlyweds will have to be satisfied that only 1.9 billion people tuned in to watch Bishop Michael Curry's 'impassioned' sermon.

The trainees were right in predicting that the mishap at the 2017 Oscars would not be repeated. Nevertheless, Warren Beatty and Faye Dunaway returned to present the best film award to The Shape of Water, which none of the trainees correctly predicted… shame on us!

Ed Sheeran's hiatus from chart domination during 2018 was correctly predicted; however, this was purely so he could complete the highest-grossing tour of the year, beating out the likes of Beyoncé and Taylor Swift. Making a measly $432 million, we're sure we can forgive his lack of number one singles.

Sport:

It so almost came home. Two easy wins in the group stages meant that most trainees, who had predicted a group stage exit, were hopelessly wide of the mark. A brilliant Rashford miss against Belgium, a rare penalty shoot-out victory and, admittedly, a lucky quarter finals draw meant that England surpassed all expectations and made it to within a Pickford's foot of the final. Gareth Southgate, predicted to be sacked, is now a national hero and, of course, 'It's Coming Home' made it to number One in the charts.

On the subject of the Winter Olympics, the trainees predicted that Team GB would pick up a gold, with Curling as their main hope. The Curling team did not collect a medal but the trainees were right in predicting success as Lizzy Yarnold picked up her second Olympic gold on the Skeleton.

The trainees were spot on in predicting that Manchester City would win the Premier League. Guardiola's side set a number of records including most consecutive victories and, most impressively, hit the 100 point mark, a first in English Premier League football. A mention must go to the bold trainee who predicted that Burnley would turn their season around (if not win the league), as they finished 7th, the highest they had ever finished. 

NDAs are legally binding contracts (also called confidentiality agreements), which commit one or more of the parties involved not to disclose specifically defined confidential information. The use of NDAs has increased since the 1970s and 1980s, and they are now standard clauses in employment contracts.

NDAs are often entered into in return for financial payment. Breach of an NDA may leave the person in breach subject to damages, potentially including any original settlement payment that was received. However, damages may not be an appropriate remedy where the NDA is in place to protect the reputation of the person or company. In these situations, many consider an injunction preferable. This is because an injunction prevents the sensitive or confidential information to which the NDA relates from being reported by the media or other parties, limiting reputational damage.

Why are NDAs currently attracting so much attention?

Several recent scandals have brought NDAs into the spotlight. Notable examples include the #MeToo movement and the behaviour reported at the Presidents Club dinner in January last year. As a result of these high-profile cases, the use of NDAs has seemingly become associated with hushing up claims of harassment and bullying, particularly within an employment context, and some have called for them to be banned. In fact, Theresa May recently told MPs that the government would seek to improve the regulation around NDAs and to make it clear where an NDA does not apply or is unenforceable, as "it is clear that some employers are using them unethically".

Do NDAs have a legitimate role to play in the commercial world?

When used properly and in an ethical manner, NDAs are legitimate and important tools used to protect the interests of commercial entities. Traditionally, they have been used by businesses to prevent employees from disclosing confidential information such as trade secrets or other intellectual property or financial information. For example, technological and pharmaceutical industries have been long-standing in their use of NDAs to protect patents. Some organisations take this a step further; various tech companies require visitors to their offices to sign agreements which prevent them from disclosing anything seen or heard during their visit.

Outside of an employment context, NDAs are often entered into by the parties to a potential M&A transaction. The potential buyer will receive sensitive financial information about the target company and the NDA will prevent this information from being shared. NDAs are also frequently used in sport; Conor McGregor and Floyd Mayweather  signed NDAs which prevented them from discussing the prize money from their boxing "superfight" in August 2017.

Overall, it is understandable that businesses wish to take appropriate measures to prevent sensitive information from becoming public or landing in the hands of their competitors. Having NDAs in place allows businesses to reduce their exposure whilst at the same time being open and honest with their employees by sharing information about the organisation.

Duplex is just one example of the maturing technologies and techniques, including voice recognition and machine learning, which are revolutionising the way we interact with retailers.  Of these, perhaps the most significant impact will be made by smart speakers, the increasingly sophisticated devices providing easy access to voice-controlled virtual assistants in our homes.  With just a short spoken command, consumers can access entertainment, search for information and purchase products online.

Much like apps for smart phones, businesses can also develop 'skills' (or 'actions') to expand smart speakers' capabilities, allowing users to do everything from booking flights to dimming the lights.  Already, over 10% of homes in the US and UK have one of these AI-powered speakers, and it is predicted that towards 70 million will be used in the US alone by 2019.  There are a number of models and AIs to choose from, with the largest tech companies such as Google, Apple, Amazon and Microsoft each offering a different device.  Even Facebook has recently shared its own candidate to be your resident AI friend.

Despite their name, however, these speakers aren't always so smart.  The AI technology, which the tech companies are improving all the time, still makes mistakes.  Reports have included a smart speaker ordering cat food at the inadvertent prompt of a TV advert, an episode of South Park leading to the creation of unwanted 7am alarm clocks, and even one device emitting disturbing random laughter as owners tried to fall asleep.  Introducing into our homes a device which is always listening also raises security concerns – with one couple's device recently discovered to have been recording and transmitting their private conversations without their knowledge.

In the face of all these issues, the fact that smart speaker sales are still rapidly increasing is testament to the significant convenience they offer consumers.  Users intuitively interact with the speakers through speech, so don't have to get to grips with a touchscreen interface.  Groceries can be ordered without lifting a finger, and AI-powered customer service is just a frustrated word away.  Experts suggest that, by 2022, the value of purchases made through voice shopping will grow to around $40 billion in the US and £3.5 billion in the UK.  With around half of US and UK smart speaker users having shopped with their device, those predictions could well become a reality.

Smart speakers can also provide potential customers with personalised product recommendations.  Recent developments in the accuracy of voice recognition technology mean that smart speakers can differentiate between different users, enabling retailers to boost sales through targeted suggestions based on individuals' shopping history.  With tools such as Adobe's voice analytics providing companies with valuable data on how customers interact with their brands through speech, smart speakers offer retailers the chance to build unprecedented brand loyalty.

While that might sound like good news for retailers, there are certainly challenges for them to overcome.  As voice search accounts for an increasingly high percentage of online searches, and consumers expect short and fast spoken responses from their smart speakers, marketers will have to adapt their strategy, brands and budgets to ensure that their products are among the very first suggested, while developers will have to work to integrate smart speaker interactions seamlessly with existing retail systems.  Further, sound-only results (or relatively small screens on some newer models) restrict the extent to which customers can investigate product recommendations before buying.  With consumers yet to build real trust in their smart speakers, this limited ability to gather facts and shop around means that repeat orders and purchases of low-value products are currently more prevalent than sales of expensive electronics or the latest fashion.

But for those retailers who do adapt to this voice-driven new environment, the opportunity is exciting.  Eager to take control of the market, tech companies are partnering with retailers to maximise their offering to consumers.  Google Home provides easy access to shop with many household names such as Argos, Tesco and Costco, while Google's collaboration with H&M on the "Home Stylist" voice app brings a personal stylist experience into the home.  On Amazon's devices, tens of thousands of skills enable effortless orders from companies such as Domino's, Starbucks and Uber.  Amazon and Microsoft have even partnered together to allow consumers access to both companies' AIs from a single device, recognising that users will want to benefit from the specialised skills of different AIs without cluttering their homes with multiple devices. 

As smart speakers and their AIs increasingly infiltrate our homes and voice shopping becomes ever more popular, retailers must plan ahead to make sure their voice, too, will be heard.

All of the above can make it rather easy to overlook the positives associated with the small(ish), flying machines. However, in the insurance market, the pros seem to be outweighing the cons. Insurers in the UK and worldwide are beginning to use drones to gather data for the underwriting process, and to assist in assessing claims.

More than just a pretty photo

The advantages of using drones for photography are understandable. A drone is able to capture more than an ordinary camera, especially where a wider or more extensive image is required. Drones were used in the aftermath of Hurricane Harvey in 2017 to photograph extensive areas affected, in order to assess property damage and detect fraudulent claims. The use of drones also enabled photographs to be collected in the immediate aftermath of the disaster, as opposed to days or weeks later once the area could be accessed. This is a further advantage of using drones: their size and mobility means that they are able to access areas that a human photographer cannot.

Furthermore, developing technology enables drones to provide more than photographic images. Drones with infrared and thermal sensors are able to provide thermal imagery which would not otherwise be visible to the human eye. Such imagery may be of use in claims concerning faulty electrical items, for example, as the images are able to show where overheating has occurred.

Drones have also been created with the ability to collect material. This allows for samples to be taken from inaccessible areas such as hazardous buildings or deep sea projects.

Minimising loss, one drone at a time

Though the initial outlay is likely to be rather expensive, drones can operate more cheaply and quickly than humans. Perhaps this is an argument that can be run in favour of any technology replicating human skill. Nonetheless, whilst time and cost savings are inevitably important to all businesses, the ultimate reward that may come with using drones is the removal of risk to life.

For many categories of risk, it is conceivable that the individual undertaking an assessment will face low risks as to their safety. However, this is not always true. Consider a situation where an insurer requires an assessment of an offshore oil rig following an explosion. There is a significant risk for any individual attending the rig, if that individual is even able to gain access at all. In flies the drone to save the day, snapping away, taking samples if required, and sending back thermal imaging to determine the cause of loss.  Possibility of risk to life averted.  

Other similar scenarios where risk to life is prevented may include: assessments of damaged properties and/or roofs, or capturing information in the aftermath of natural disasters such as floods, where individuals attending would potentially be at risk of contracting infectious diseases.   

But what happens when the technology fails?

It is, sadly, a well-known fact of modern life that technology is not infallible, and drones are no exception to this fact. A drone failure or malfunction could result in photographs being lost, samples being dropped, or the drone becoming stuck or going missing, the 'worst case scenario' being damage caused to property or bodily injury to a bystander.

A further concern associated with the use of drones is the possibility of criminal sanctions if a drone is misused. Regulations implemented in the UK by the Air Navigation Order 2016 impose safety rules on drones being operated commercially. If a drone is flown above 400ft (which is the statutory limit) the registered operator could receive an unlimited fine and/or be sent to prison for five years.  Furthermore, a fine of £1,000 may be issued if a drone has not been registered with the Civil Aviation Authority, or has not completed the requisite safety test.

Ultimately, the answer to 'what happens when it all goes wrong' is not yet known. This is new technology that insurers, and other markets, are beginning to utilise. However, as manufacturers continue to develop more complex drones with further capabilities (including AI), the benefits for the insurance market can be expected to grow.  

The consumer wants an experience

I've spent my fair share of hours being dragged around many a retail park or designer outlet village; it's even an experience that others have been known to enjoy. That retail "experience" is something that even the best websites can struggle to emulate. However, if all a store has is a maze of rails and racking, then the consumer can feel a little lost. We are now seeing a move towards stores being an enhancement to an online offering.

Retailers have sought to evolve and enhance their offering to customers through a focus on (i) installing technological solutions to improve the overall experience; (ii) diversifying their in-store offering; and (iii) innovating and expanding new concepts.

Look to tech

One way of providing an "experience" is to look to technology. Amazon launched its first checkout-free grocery store under the brand "Amazon Go", where their software "automatically detects when products are taken from or returned to the shelves and keeps track of them in a virtual cart". There's no chance of any freebies though, as the software charges you as you leave the store and a little while later you'll be sent a receipt.

The result is no queues and a stress free shopping experience - well, that was the theory. In fact, the store became so popular that there were actually scores of people waiting outside to get in and spend their money, and has become a quasi-tourist attraction.

Diversify

Sports Direct have acquired a stake in Game Digital's e-sports business (Belong). According to Newzoo's 2017 report, there are 2.2 billion active gamers across the world – 47% of whom spend money whilst playing. And the attraction is not just from the players – e-sports have a large audience of viewers, which are tipped to reach 500 million by 2021.

If retailers can entice a fraction of that audience into their stores then it opens up not only a new market but a wider consumer base for their existing offering.

Innovate

Brand "Rent the Runway", the vision of Jennifer Hyman and Jennifer Fleiss, offers consumers the option of a subscription based service which allows customer to borrow items of clothing for a set period and to exchange those items as often as they want online or in-store; a kind of bottomless wardrobe (without having to find the storage space). The brand seems to be a hit, with revenues of over $100 million in 2016 and it is now valued at almost $800 million. The mix of online and retail options combined with their USP seems to be a winning formula.

I'll leave you to form an opinion on whether the idea would be the kind of thing you'd want to subscribe to, but as a method of combining the physical and online, it seems to accommodate the needs of all parties. Rent the runway is a great example of innovative retail, which has captured the target market's imagination.

Summary

The evolution of retail isn't about online or offline, it's about choice, price and offering. If you have a good product, a sound business plan, and can appeal to consumers on a number of levels then you could be on to a winner. Analysts may declare that the high street is dying but retail shows no signs of letting up.

It is likely that better education about alcohol and drugs and increased competition for university spots have both contributed to the change in attitude. But those factors, which have been intensifying for decades, don't explain the sudden recent shift. After all, we always knew about the value of education, family, and health, it just wasn't cool to prioritise them (openly at least).

'Sensible teenagers' are not a new concept, but until recently they were individuals who stood out from the pack, and may have even risked social exclusion. In contrast, Generation Sensible is the accepted collective, and a label which current teens are proud of. Apparently, it's going out which is now 'a bit lame'.

The impact of social media

The BPAS study found that the average young person spends 4.8 hours online every day for non-work/study purposes. Picking this up, some reports suggest that teens' increasing screen-time may have contributed to the change in behaviour, as individuals socialising remotely are less likely to be engaging in rebellious activities.

Whilst this is a valid argument, I don't think it tells the whole story. Even if teens spent less time on social media (a real possibility given Facebook and Instagram's newly announced time management tools) the apps may still influence the behaviour of Generation Sensible. A closer look at how we use social media, rather than just how much, suggests that it not only passively discourages rebellious behaviour, but actively promotes family-friendly activities, even when we are offline.

#wellness

I take Instagram as an example, as it is one of the most popular forms of social media amongst teens.

When an Instagram user posts an image, they can label it with relevant 'hashtags' to describe the activity or mood, which other users can then search against. By reviewing the 100 most popular hashtags, you can get a sense of the types of images most commonly shared and viewed. The impression is remarkably clean and wholesome. Whilst #family, #nature, #art, #workout and #healthy all make the cut, there is no mention of the more subversive activities which teenagers of old were more commonly associated with (#foodporn doesn't count).

The most popular themes on social media will undoubtedly impact users' behaviour. Not only because those themes are sub-consciously absorbed, but because anyone wishing to publicise their online profile will have more success by consciously uploading posts which are relevant to popular search terms. This is particularly applicable to anyone with a pecuniary interest in publicity, such as celebrities, influencers and commercial retailers, who also happen to have the most prominence on Instagram. In this way, Instagram is not only descriptive of our behaviour, but prescriptive.

Teens are very active users of social media sites such as Instagram, and are also particularly susceptible to trends endorsed by celebrities, brands and their peers. With this in mind, it is not unreasonable to link the popular social media themes of health, wellness and studying with the recent stats demonstrating the rise of Generation Sensible.

In(sta)evitably sensible?

But even if there is a correlation, can we really say that Instagram itself has encouraged teens to be more sensible? Aren't social media platforms just that – platforms which reflect and express existing trends, whether they be #falafel and #fitness, or #hangingoutonthecorner #smoking?

Whilst apps such as Instagram are essentially vehicles for expression, there are various reasons why young people will tend to express themselves in a relatively 'sensible' way within them – not least because avo toast and yoga poses are probably more photogenic than beer bottles and cigarettes. 

Current teenagers are the first generation to grow up with the concept of an online profile. They know intuitively that once a post has been made on an app or website, it is out of the user's control. Even if a user subsequently deletes a poorly-judged post, or it only remains live for a few seconds, there is nothing stopping other users from taking screenshots, thereby preserving an opportunity to cause damage years later. As a result, it has been argued that post-millennials 'curate' themselves more cautiously than older generations, who had to learn the hard way.

In addition, with social media becoming increasingly popular amongst older generations, there is an even more terrifying prospect than universities or future bosses gaining access to teens' profiles. In spite of all the friend request rejections, blocks, decoy accounts and firewalls, the risk of parents gaining access to your profile is very real.

In October 2017, the Financial Conduct Authority (FCA) published its Financial Lives Survey which showed that only 5-10% of under-35s have any investments.  This is no great surprise, with millennials reportedly spending three times more of their income on housing than their grandparents did.  The average 18 to 34 year-old in the UK reportedly has £325 spare cash at the end of each month, so after paying for essentials such as bills, rent and food, they are unlikely to be able to save the lump sum required to invest through "traditional" investment vehicles.

The solution?

In an increasingly cash-less society, micro-investing platforms can provide a mechanism whereby users can save their spare change, and then invest it.  With minimum investments starting at just £1, these platforms provide an "in" for investors who don't have a lump sum to invest. 

Some smartphone apps will even track a user's spending, rounding-up purchases to the nearest pound, and moving that spare change into an online account to be saved or invested.  That £2.40 coffee means 60p in your account.  Add another, and you've got enough to start investing.

There are currently only a few providers in the UK offering these round-up services.  However, the introduction of Open Banking in the UK, as discussed in my previous blog, will allow consumers to require their current account providers to share data with authorised third-parties, making such services easier to provide. In fact, since the launch of Open Banking on 13 January 2018, the FCA has received, and more importantly approved, applications from a number of new FinTech companies wishing to provide round-up services. 

Why now?

Whilst being assisted by Open Banking, these platforms have been made possible by the rise of robo-advisers: essentially automated investment management systems which buy or sell investments through an algorithm, on a platform such as a smartphone app.  These robo-advisers have low overheads (they don't require wages, for a start) meaning that providers can accept lower initial outlays. 

Robo-advisers are subject to the same regulatory constraints as human financial advisers are: the FCA states that its rules are "technology neutral".  That said, the regulator is monitoring developments in this area, recognising that automated advice creates different risks to more traditional models. 

Conclusion

Investing through a micro-investing service may be an attractive proposition: it's easy and, dare I say it, fun.  Being able to see investments change on a daily basis provides a degree of interaction, which might just be the spark needed to ignite an interest in investment more generally.  And the low threshold for starting means that anyone can get involved.  

As with all investments, the value can go down as well as up and investors will still probably have to hold investments for the long-term to see them outperform savings.  In a society where payments and investments are made at the tap of a finger, it remains to be seen whether these platforms' target market has the patience to watch their acorns grow.

Though these schemes emerged in a bid to promote a greener life, they have attracted increasing concern because of the environmental and economical hazards they create.

Running green?

The schemes appear to have successfully reduced congestion and carbon in China. According to a report by a Chinese think tank, the total number of car journeys in the 50 cities in which Mobike operates had fallen by 3% since the scheme launched in 2016. Mobike users travelled an incredible 2.5bn kilometers in total in one year (the equivalent of over 60,000 times around the equator), saving the equivalent annual emissions of 170,000 cars. The statistics published by other bike sharing companies show a similar result.

Running riot?

The convenience and popularity of the schemes are the makers of their success, but also the source of their potential downfall.

The rapid growth of bike sharing companies has vastly overtaken the demand in China, so much so that the infrastructure and local regulations are simply not fit for the sudden flood of shared bikes, which can be parked anywhere and are often just abandoned.

In Shanghai, there are around 1.5m shared bikes on the road (in contrast, there are only 11,000 Santander Cycles in London). Bikes have been piling up and blocking already-crowded streets and pathways. As some of the companies which jumped in too big and too early have begun to fold, their huge surplus of bikes can be found collecting dust in vast vacant lots and many of their former customers have reported trouble getting their rental deposits back.

China's Ministry of Transport announced in November 2017 that it would clamp down on the sector to "protect customers' interests and put the industry in a healthy and orderly track."

Possible answer to the problems by lawmakers

Fortunately, regulators in Asia have realised the problems that come with these schemes and are taking actions to improve them.

Mr Lau Kwok-fan, of the Democratic Alliance for the Betterment and Progress of Hong Kong, believes lax regulation is to blame for the oversupply of shared bikes and the fact they are "littered" everywhere. In 2017, the Hong Kong authorities removed about 11,000 illegally parked bikes in the city, including 146 operated by sharing schemes.

Policy makers in Singapore are also considering introducing a bill which would require operators to obtain a licence before being allowed to run their mobility services. Once the bill has been passed, businesses will have to reduce the size of their fleets to make sure the market is not flooded with bikes. Perhaps surprisingly, the bill is backed by some bike sharing companies as it will also reduce competition in the market and urge all companies to act responsibly.

UK: the way forward

Bike sharing schemes undoubtedly provide a healthier way of life and reduce carbon consumption, but tighter regulations are needed so that the schemes can develop sustainably.

London and some other UK cities are among the latest markets where Ofo and Mobike have been competing against each other. Similar to Shanghai, London is a heavily populated and congested mega city. Seeing what happened in China, it's easy to foresee that the same may take place in London, especially when dumped bikes are already being spotted around the UK.

Going forward, the law makers should take quick actions in regulating the bike sharing schemes. Meanwhile, the authorities should allocate sufficient resources in clearing the bikes which are parked illegally and in educating the users to park the bikes responsibly.

The insurance industry has historically captured large volumes of data both to incept policies and following claims. This data is now being used more effectively, for instance Aviva recently found a link between the purchase of life insurance and safe driving, and used this information to offer cheaper car insurance to their life customers.

Moreover, the insurance industry is using newly available information throughout the insurance cycle. For instance, parametric agricultural insurance uses weather data, crop data and soil data, not only to assist in writing risks, but also to confirm and quantify losses allowing a claim to be paid without the need for an on-site inspection. Satellite imagery was used to quickly confirm claims during hurricanes Harvey, Irma and Maria last year, allowing insurers to focus their resources more effectively. Also, smart sensors are being used to predict and prevent damage to cargo within transit, and to track and quickly recover lost cargo, allowing insurers to prevent a loss before it even occurs and providing insurers with greater certainty when recovering losses.

There are hundreds of examples of the way in which big data is creating new opportunities in the insurance industry and changing the way it operates, from the types of risks that can be written, to how they are written, to how insurers interact with claims.

Visitors

Over 100,000 people flocked to Windsor for Harry and Meghan's big day and it was reported that over 200,000 people passed through the town in the week leading up to the wedding, up 37% from the previous year. In the UK as a whole, the number of American tourists has increased by an estimated 15%, bringing more than £3.6 billion to the UK economy.

Meanwhile, William and Kate helped to bring in an extra 350,000 visitors to the UK during the month of their wedding in April 2011.

Social media

When William and Kate married in 2011, interest was so great that the BBC's website couldn't handle the demand and subsequently crashed. Twitter was all the rage at the time, and there were 2.7 million mentions of William and Kate's wedding over a 24-hour period, whilst Harry and Meghan's #RoyalWedding received a whopping 5.2 million tweets in the same period. Kensington Palace's Instagram page has over 15 million likes on the official pictures taken on the day of Harry and Meghan's wedding along with 1.2 million posts from other users. Instagram was just a few months old in 2011 so we can't blame William and Kate for their lack of likes.

Viewers

Though Harry and Meghan might have all of the millennials 'hashtagging' away, William and Kate still pulled in a larger UK television audience with 24 million people watching the ceremony in 2011, compared to Harry and Meghan's 18 million. However, an estimated 29.2 million Americans stayed up to watch their California girl marry her prince compared to the 23 million viewers who tuned in to see William and Kate tie the knot.

It is estimated that two billion viewers watched William and Kate marry but a staggering 3 billion were expected to watch Harry and Meghan say 'I do', which would make it the most viewed event in history.

The bill

Although Harry and Meghan only invited 600 of their closest friends including the cast of our favourite fictional law firm, it seems that no expense was spared.

The estimated cost of Harry and Meghan's wedding was an eye-watering £32 million, whilst William and Kate got a bargain at just £23 million, despite inviting over three times as many guests. It is thought that the majority of the money went on security for Harry and Meghan's big day. However, the Royal couple did manage to use St George's Chapel and St George's Hall free of charge, thanks to Her Majesty, The Queen.

Sharing the love

As we reported in our last blog on Meghan's effect on the retail economy, the Duke and Duchess of Sussex have been doing a fantastic job of putting small businesses on the map. In what has been dubbed 'The Markle Economy', it is estimated that the Duchess of Sussex will provide a £150 million boost to the fashion industry.

In a somewhat surprising choice, Meghan's wedding dress was made by Givenchy, the French fashion house. Though Givenchy is hardly in need of a retail boost, Clare Waight Keller is the company's first female artistic director and has had countless articles written about her since the wedding weekend.

Harry and Meghan's cake maker, Claire Ptak's Violet Bakery in Hackney, is also sure to receive an influx of new orders from those hoping to get a slice of their regal cakes.

If the 'Meghan Effect' is anything like the 'Kate Effect', then Stella McCartney, Givenchy and Violet Bakery are in for a strong financial year.

And the winner is…

So as we dry our collective tears and come to accept that we have missed our chance to become a princess (and marry Prince Harry), we conclude that Harry and Meghan have come out ahead in the fight for the best Royal wedding.

Check out our series in 20 years' time when Prince George ties the knot to one of our future children…

• the ‘Kate effect’ began when Kate Middleton wore a royal blue silk jersey wrap design by Issa for her official engagement photo; and

• fast-forward seven years and the ‘Meghan effect’ was born with Meghan wearing a white coat from LINE the Label in her official engagement photo.

With the royal wedding around the corner, this article will look at the impact of the so-called ‘Meghan effect’ and see how it compares against the 'Kate effect'.

The 'Kate effect'

The craze that ensued after Kate wore her Issa dress took the little-known British fashion label by surprise.  At the time of the engagement Daniella Helayel, the Brazilian fashion designer behind the iconic dress, had a small company on the 'verge of financial crisis'. After Kate wore the dress sales doubled, but the company did not have the money to finance production on such a mass scale to meet demand. A friend of the designer, Camilla Al-Fayed, bought a 51 per cent stake in the company and the company recruited a new CEO in 2012, which subsequently saw Helayel leave the brand as creative director in May 2013. Two years later, the label closed. Unfortunately for Issa, it was not able to capitalise on its new found popularity caused by the 'Kate effect’.

However, other companies have been able to successfully reap the benefits.  For example the 'Kate effect' has the power to sell out clothing that the Duchess of Cambridge wears publicly within hours. LK Bennett, a favourite British brand of the Duchess of Cambridge, reported a 37 per cent rise in earnings in 2012 to £11m, the year after her wedding. According to accounts for Alexander McQueen Trading Limited filed at Companies House, after designing Kate’s wedding dress Alexander McQueen saw sales rise by 29 per cent to £52 million the year of the wedding. Indeed, it is estimated that Kate Middleton's fashion-icon status contributed around £150 million to the economy in 2015 – an impressive statistic which confirms her power to influence consumer purchasing.

How has Meghan compared?

So what about the ‘Meghan effect’? For Meghan’s first public outing with Prince Harry at the Invictus Games in Toronto she was pictured wearing upstart eyewear brand Finlay & Co. Twenty-four hours after she was photographed wearing its tortoise frames, the brand had sold £20,000 worth of the glasses. The brand revealed that sales have since increased by 1,000 per cent.

For Meghan and Harry’s engagement shoot, Meghan wore a $750 white coat from Canadian brand LINE The Label. Within minutes of the photos of her wearing it being released the coat had sold out and the demand crashed the brand's website. The coat has since been renamed The Meghan.

Then, at her first official royal outing with Prince Harry, she carried a $675 burgundy bag made by Scottish brand Strathberry. The bag sold out in 11 minutes after photos emerged of her holding it and has since been renamed the Meghan Bag.

The power of influence

Meghan and Kate are able to command the respect and attention of a large target market and when they wear an item their followers want to emulate them and be like them, thus sales of the items they wear soar. As we can see from some of the examples above, their endorsement of a brand can have a hugely positive impact on the fortunes of a brand.

Indeed, it’s predicted by Konrad Jagodzinski, an analyst at London brand strategy group Brand Finance, that Ms Markle will quickly match the roughly £150m worth of sales he estimated the Duchess of Cambridge generated in 2015 through informal endorsements, and expects that Ms Markle will surpass the Duchess’s retail influence in the UK and abroad. Fflur Roberts, head of luxury at Euromonitor, believes that Meghan being American makes a big difference: “It’s going to open many more doors to brands in the US. The whole world will be following what she’s wearing and will want to have those products." Overall, Brand Finance estimates that Meghan could boost the British economy by $677 (£500) million this year.

If those estimates are right, it looks like the Meghan effect is on course to be even more influential that the Kate effect.  The only question left to ask then is who will design the wedding dress…

We have already seen that Royal weddings are a big industry – with the Royal brand valued at around £60bn, it's no wonder that businesses are keen for a slice of the (wedding) cake. And although the event looks to be more inclusive and progressive than ever, that doesn't mean that marketers will have free rei(g)n to use the names and likenesses of Britain’s sweethearts to exploit the celebration.

Advertising and Mark(l)eting

A Royal wedding carries huge potential for themed advertising, social media and promotional campaigns. Whilst it may be tempting for businesses to take advantage of the event as their latest marketing ploy, they do so at their peril – those friendly Royal faces (and their titles, arms and emblems) are protected by a number of laws and codes.

The Advertising Standards Authority has pre-emptively issued specific guidance on the topic – the upshot being that, generally speaking, members of the Royal Family should not be shown or mentioned in any marketing communications without their prior permission (as Ryanair, among others, have learned).

The Royals may have a cause of action against any rogue marketing under the tort of passing off, although it is perhaps unlikely that they would enforce it on every occasion. Given their elevated status, they also have specific legislative protections – not only does the Trade Marks Act outline that unauthorised business use of Royal insignia or titles is a criminal offence, the Trade Descriptions Act further states that brands must not give false indications that their products or services are supplied to or approved by the Royals.

To top it off, featuring the happy couple in marketing may also have some implications under copyright law. Unless you happen to have snapped the perfect shot from the crowd, any images will need to be properly licensed, and commercial use may be restricted. An official wedding photographer has been hired, and copyright will be held by Kensington Palace – which means no commercial use of the official engagement photographs (and, presumably, the official wedding photographs).

The key take-away is this: anything that falsely implies endorsement by the Royal Family is about as permissible as touching the Queen herself. So while very general references to the wedding, congratulatory messages or expressions of good wishes may be acceptable, marketers should not claim or imply that a product or service is either endorsed or affiliated with the Royal Family or Royal events, unless they really are. As that's about as likely as Her Majesty parachuting into a major sporting event (again), over the coming days we can expect to see a number of oblique references, with businesses doing just enough to trade off the mood without crossing the line.

Suit(s)able souvenirs

Royal memorabilia has somehow come to hold a special place in British culture. What better way to start the wedding day than by tucking in to a bowl of £40 Harry and Meghan cereal? Do you need a Pez dispenser to commemorate the special occasion? Of course you do. And you're the reason that the last Royal wedding generated a whopping £222m in souvenir sales alone. While there's clearly no accounting for taste, there are some restrictions as to what should and shouldn't feature on those treasured items.

In preparation for the wedding, the Royal Household has issued a set of guidelines relaxing the normal restrictions which apply to memorabilia and souvenirs. Essentially, approved photographs of the couple, approved phrases (e.g. ‘To Commemorate the Marriage of HRH Prince Henry of Wales and Ms Meghan Markle, 19 May 2018’) and the Prince's coat of arms can be used on products which:

• are in good taste;
• are free from any form of advertisement; and
• carry no implication of Royal custom or approval.

There are, of course, some restrictions; while you can't slap the happy couple's mugs on a novelty T-shirt, you can slap it on… well, mugs.

Royal treatment

As if the Royal wedding didn't already provide enough entertainment, we now get to spend the next few days buying knick-knacks we don't need, all while watching brands compete for the most creative, and the most subtle, reference to Harry and Meghan's big day. For what it's worth, my money's on H&M (who, with their initials, have been handed a marketing opportunity on a silver platter) – but we’ll have to wait and see whose campaign will Rule Britannia. Either way, we can all look forward to our favourite brands giving their marketing a bit of the royal treatment.

The former Home Secretary Amber Rudd declared the Royal wedding as an opportunity for the country to 'join together and celebrate' and 'raise a glass to Prince Harry and Meghan Markle on a day of celebration'. Consequently, Section 172 of the Licensing Act was invoked after a four week consultation, and pubs across England and Wales will now be able to stay open until 1.00am on both nights of Friday 18 and Saturday 19 May.

The British Beer & Pub Association has estimated that the extended trading hours could deliver a £10m sales boost to English and Welsh pubs (or roughly an extra 2.8 million pints of beer if we use the average UK price). The boost will come from visitors who see the British pub as a cultural icon, as well as the British public themselves taking advantage of those extra drinking hours.

The decline of the British pub

However, as great as the boost may be, it is merely short term, and does not cover up the long and rapid decline that has been seen in the UK pub sector. Since 2000 the number of UK pubs has fallen by 17%, or more strikingly 10,500 pubs. The trend is still continuing as it was reported in February of this year that 616 pubs have disappeared since April 2017, equating to roughly two a day. Although an improvement from the 2014 figures where pubs were closing at a rate of 29 per week, the sector is far from 'strong and stable'.

Multiple reasons are given for the decline including the smoking ban, the 2008 recession and increased taxes. The Government has attempted to tackle this with the recent £1,000 business rate relief for pubs being extended until March 2019. Similarly, a duty freeze on beer, wine and spirits was confirmed in the Autumn Budget. Although these provide a much needed tax break to the pub sector, it still fails to identify and tackle the underlying issues that have caused fewer of us to visit the local pub.

This decline stems from a cultural shift in the way the UK population buys and consumes alcohol. Since 2000, supermarket sales of beer have increased by 27%; resultantly reducing the amount of beer purchased in pubs. Furthermore, a study by the Institute of Alcohol Studies found that affordability of wine and spirits in supermarkets has improved by 131%, whereas the prices in pubs have risen steadily. This is further exacerbated by the fact that adults are drinking less. The ONS has reported that in the last decade there has been a 2% increase in those describing themselves as teetotal.

The solution

As a result, we are left with a population that drinks less and prefers to buy alcohol more affordably at supermarkets. Nevertheless, it is wrong to merely accept that the knell should start being rung on the British pub industry, as these businesses can still be turned around into profitable enterprises. The focus has to be on removing the dated image of the traditional pub, and making it a more accessible space to a broader demographic.

City Pub Group reported a 3.8% increase on like-for-like sales during 2017 and The Seafood Pub Company reported a 22% turnover increase in 2016. Both of these pub chains focus on quality local food and creating independent venues. Furthermore, working with the rapidly increasing sector of craft breweries and distilleries has proved an effective tool, as pubs are able to offer a more unique product that can't be bought in the supermarket.

According to the Office for National Statistics, an additional 350,000 tourists visited the UK in April 2011 at the time of the Duke and Duchess of Cambridge’s wedding, in comparison with April 2010. That is 350,000 more people spending on hotels, as well as in shops, pubs and restaurants. Similarly, the weekend of the Queen’s Diamond Jubilee in 2012 brought in an additional £120 million in sales in London.

While on the face of it, this increase in spending would seem to have positive impacts on the economy, both royal events actually saw economic output decrease, with the Bank of England estimating GDP decreased by 0.5% in the second quarter as a result of the Diamond Jubilee alone.

Could this wedding have a different effect?

The short answer is yes, it could. Much to the British public’s dismay, it was decided that the wedding of Prince Harry and Meghan Markle would be held on a Saturday, without a public bank holiday. On average, research suggests that a bank holiday costs the UK £2.3 billion in lost economic output due to closed shops and lost working hours.

The wedding of Prince William and Kate Middleton also saw people take annual leave to coincide with the additional bank holiday and a late Easter. So, whilst there may have been tourists flooding into the country, this was coupled with Britons leaving to go abroad with their additional holiday (a total of 4.81 million Britons over April 2011 to be exact!).

As with previous royal celebrations, the upcoming wedding will likely have a positive influence on the tourism industry with some sources estimating that it will add over £500 million to the economy from increased spending. Since news of the engagement broke, souvenir shops have been lining their shelves with memorabilia, such as mugs and tea towels, adorned with pictures of Prince Harry and Meghan. Further, the fact Meghan Markle is from Los Angeles could encourage more American tourists to the British capital, with the Royal Family being one of biggest draws to the UK for Americans.

As for how much the wedding itself will cost, a statement released by Kensington Palace made it clear that the Royal Family will be paying for core elements of the wedding, including the decorations and the reception. However, similar to the Duke and Duchess of Cambridge’s wedding, and other national events, the costs of security and policing will be paid by the taxpayer.

Despite the taxpayer covering these security costs, the lack of an extra bank holiday will likely result in this Royal wedding having positive impacts on the economy!

Next big thing?

The massive potential benefits of blockchain for the insurance industry include:

Enhanced data protection

With numerous data breaches hitting the news in recent months, customers have begun to fear that they are losing control of their data. Blockchain helps to alleviate these fears as the data remains on a user's device and is registered and verified on the blockchain network without being shared outside it.

This is of particular relevance to insurers which tend to hold a large amount of personal data in order to write business and detect fraud. By removing the need for an insurer to hold a policyholder's sensitive data, blockchain can increase a customer's confidence that their data is not being mishandled, whilst simultaneously alleviating the administrative burden on insurers. The latter benefit is particularly relevant in light of the impending implementation of the GDPR, and its raft of new obligations.

Verification

Blockchain networks can enable the automatic verification of data encryption and payments. Also, by sharing information across multiple industries, blockchain can validate authenticity and ownership, thereby helping identify stolen or counterfeit goods and fraudulent claims.

This high level of automation and integration can slash the overall time involved in the verification processes, reduce the involvement of claims handlers, and thereby accelerate potential cost savings.

Reduced costs

Reduced handling expenses can also allow insurers to expand into emerging markets without prohibitive setup costs. For example, a farmer in an emerging market could qualify for a policy under pre-defined parameters and receive an automatic pay-out under a smart contract without an underwriter or claims handler becoming involved.

So what's the issue?

Should an insurer decide that the potential benefits of blockchain are worth embracing, they should also bear in mind some issues which will likely delay the implementation of blockchain.

Scalability

As the authentication within blockchain is based upon a series of parties validating a transaction, scaling the system upwards to an effective size presents an immediate challenge. High-speed and high-volume transactions are not the intended domains for blockchain, therefore insurers will need to work out how to fit blockchain into their business.

Security

Because blockchain's breakthrough and development have been so rapid, the potential security risks of storing and validating data on the network may not be fully understood, and it may be harder to mitigate the risks of a cyber-attack compared to conventional databases.

Cooperation

For blockchain to achieve results beyond those possible with traditional databases, a high level of collaboration is needed between various parties. For example, cooperation between insurers, customers and various other parties is necessary for blockchain technology to facilitate the effective use of smart contracts.

In a world where people are increasingly concerned about sharing data, this level of cooperation seems like a long way off. Insurers will need to identify the necessary parties early on and push strongly for the integration of their information and data without comprising existing relationships. This may be achieved by requiring permission to share data from the inception of policies and contracts, or negotiating suitable addendums to existing agreements.

Standardisation

To ensure sustainable benefits from an open and shared blockchain system, industry-wide standardisation will be critical. A lack of defined standards is an indication that the technology is still in its infancy and, until these standards are agreed, productivity may be limited and investment may be unattractive.

Next steps for the insurance industry

Blockchain can greatly simplify transactions, particularly those which involve several parties or where there is a risk of retroactive manipulation of data. However, where there is a well-established intermediary or a transaction which only involves a limited number of participants, blockchain may not be appropriate. In a longstanding industry such as insurance, the technology needs careful consideration as existing, proven models may be preferable to switching to a blockchain-based solution, especially considering the range of issues that may delay the implementation of the technology.

However, the widespread optimism surrounding blockchain and its clear potential benefits to the insurance industry mean that insurers may well fall behind if they do not explore how blockchain could be used, and those who first successfully integrate the technology will be in prime position to reap the rewards.

It is an open secret that the personal data we put online is a valuable commodity, used for targeted advertising. Many companies know personal details such as consumers' location. But knowing how you react to situations? What your eyes dart to and what you ignore? That would be uniquely intrusive. VR involves the user giving considerable amounts of personal data, far beyond what social media has the capacity to collect. The system could even monitor your health through tracking movement and reaction times. For many companies, the chance to learn their customers' behaviour patterns would be invaluable. As these new, more complex privacy and data collection issues develop, legislators will have to take steps to ensure that the law can keep pace.

It is easy to demand legislation which covers the risks of VR but, taking a step back, what laws would apply to the virtual world that users enter? Every place has its own laws, are virtual places any different? Of course, VR users are operating in real-world jurisdictions. Would that mean that each user must abide by the laws of its own country? In the virtual world, this means that each user could be abiding by different laws. While this problem may seem largely academic, these issues are arising in reality; for instance, in the Netherlands, two people were found guilty of theft after forcing another player to access his RuneScape account and hand over some of his virtual items. While some may see the virtual items as merely a collection of pixels, there is often real money and time spent on acquiring the items. That isn't virtual, nor is the victim's sense of being robbed. But the ruling would not necessarily be the same if the question was heard by a court in a different country. Would some players be able to 'steal', while others are unable to get away with that behaviour? All this remains to be decided.

So do we have all the answers for the legal questions which will inevitably arise? Are we at least aware of all the issues which might present themselves? Unsatisfyingly, the answer is “not yet”. The law can be a slow-moving instrument at times and this may cause difficulties when technology advances rapidly – the rise of cyber-crime demonstrates this delay.  In the next few years, it is likely that we will see improvements in VR software, hardware and content, and with it more widespread use of VR technology. We must move quickly now to lay down a legal framework for VR to exist in, before the use of VR becomes a day-to-day reality. 

The WTO has many roles: it operates global trade rules, acts as a forum for negotiating trade agreements, settles trade disputes, and it supports developing countries. The WTO is made up of 164 member nations (Members) who collectively hold decision making power.

How does the WTO deal with disputes?

Although the WTO is not a court, it has dispute settlement procedures called the Dispute Settlement Understanding,(the DSU). These are used to settle disagreements between Members.

The DSU is administered by the Dispute Settlement Body (the DSB), a general council of Members that wear dispute settlement "hats". Every member is eligible to sit on the DSB, and therefore every Member is part of the DSB. The DSB decides whether another state has breached the WTO trade rules, and what the consequence will be.

Unique attributes of the DSB

There are three attributes of the DSB that are unique in comparison to other public international law bodies:

Speed

The WTO's system of dispute resolution is extremely fast, given the subject matter. A panel report (effectively a judgment of first instance) is automatically accepted unless the whole DSB rejects the finding. This makes it difficult for a panel report to be rejected as both the complainant and respondent Members must agree to reject it. Similarly, if a decision is then appealed, the Appellate Court ruling can also only be rejected by consensus.

On average, the WTO aims to resolve a dispute in 15 months. While this has slowed down, it is still much faster than some other international public law bodies, and is comparable with high-value claims in the English High Court.

Lack of restitution and damages

Panel decisions differ from normal litigation in England and Wales because they do not provide compensation to non-state actors. Even if a panel's finding determines that a Member breached the trade rules, any private parties that were harmed will not receive direct compensation. This differs from domestic and EU rules, where private parties are able to bring actions for damages against states.

The WTO is able to limit future damage by making the Member take remedial steps and continuing to ensure the rules are complied with. However, this does little to help the companies and individuals who are hurt by the breach, as was shown when Irish workers faced being made redundant when the US imposed tariffs on Bombardier.

"Retaliation"

The WTO's most unique attribute is the idea of "retaliation". This is the primary way the WTO enforces the DSU, and is very different from the normal remedies available in English and Welsh courts.

If a respondent Member fails to comply with a finding of the DSB or the Appellate Court, the WTO can authorise "retaliation". Instead of enforcing a judgment or damages, the WTO authorises the wronged Member to take action to rectify the breach; for example, by raising tariffs (see page 148).

The WTO's role post-Brexit

If the UK leaves the EU without some form of transitional deal, trade disputes between the two nations will no longer be dealt with by the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU). Instead, it is possible that the WTO will become the forum for these disputes.

Firstly, DSU rules dictate that if disputes between the EU and the UK arise over issues contained within the DSU Appendix 1, the UK must rely on the WTO for dispute resolution.

At present, it is the CJEU that is responsible for regulating EU trade issues. It has various restorative remedies available to parties affected by a breach. Although the DSB process will allow for speed and retaliation, it is likely that the lack of restitution and minimal powers of compliance will be seen less favourably by states that are used to the compensation available under EU law.

Secondly, the benefit of retaliation through the DSU would be lost due to the UK being an independent Member, whereas previously it had retained the 'blanket protection' as an EU Member State.

Conclusion

Although Britain's economy is significant, it remains smaller than the USA, China and the EU itself. Previously it has enjoyed the protections offered by the EU, as well as the CJEU's comprehensive dispute settlement powers. The WTO rules, which are far less concrete, might not be sufficient. It is hard to see how the UK could effectively "retaliate" against a state like China or the US. As a result, legislators in the UK must think carefully about how they plan to manage trading relationships between the UK and other nations post-Brexit.

The OBIE is a non-profit organisation which was set-up by the Competition and Markets Agency (CMA) and the biggest nine current account providers to deliver Open Banking within the UK. Its aim is to increase competition and innovation within the banking sector; but what is Open Banking, and what does it mean for financial services businesses?

What is Open Banking?

Open Banking is essentially a UK-based system of technology and rules which facilitates the sharing of customer account data. The initial roll-out of this platform commenced on 13 January 2018 with current account data, and will continue with credit card data being added in the future. Imran Gulemhuseinwala, Trustee of OBIE, said: "This is a major step towards giving the customer real ownership and control of their finances and data."

What do the changes mean?

Third parties will, with the right authorisation and permission, be able to access customer account data and provide services which use that data.

For example, an AISP will consolidate customer data and provide services on the basis of that data. An AISP could use current account data to provide a simple platform through which a customer can see all of their accounts in one place. It could also provide detailed budgeting services, tracking a customer's spending across multiple accounts and providing analysis on that customer's spending habits, without the customer having to release sensitive bank log-in details.

A PISP, as the name suggests, is able to initiate payments from the customer's account. A PISP could therefore provide an alternative to card payments. Previously, an online shopping service would usually pay to use a payment services provider (PSP) and an acquiring bank to accept payments on their behalf. A PISP would be able to cut out the acquiring bank (and the fees they receive) by integrating payment into online shopping checkouts, allowing the customer to pay directly from their bank account.

As of 13 January, AISPs and PISPs are able to apply for authorisation from the Financial Conduct Authority (FCA), and use the Open Banking platform to develop services.

A competitive edge

Banks are already facing challenges in meeting the requirements of PSD2, and five of those that have signed up to Open Banking have had to delay their launches.

Aside from technical challenges, banks will also have to be able to deal with communicating with multiple new entrants to the market, who could act as intermediaries between the banks and their customers. The banks will also face direct challenges from these new entrants: as an example, whereas previously banks were able to charge fees for acquiring online payments, they are prevented from charging AISPs and PISPs for access to customer data.

So what can the banks do?

Firstly, banks can apply to be AISPs and PISPs, and develop their own platforms and services to compete with third-party providers. The banks have an advantage: with online banking and mobile apps already in place they have experience in developing these services, and can use their existing online banking platform as a basis for further services. The top nine banks have also been involved in developing the Open Banking system. Third party providers will only now be able to start using the Open Banking system to develop their products.

Secondly, banks already have customers. With a lacklustre launch of the Open Banking system, and staged roll-out of data provision, Open Banking does not appear to be in the public eye. If third party providers are unable to quickly get their services out they may find that the market is already cornered by the traditional banks. OBIE suggests it will be months before the first third-party services are ready.

Finally, although Open Banking is as safe as online banking it remains to be seen whether consumers will be willing for their information to be shared. Existing banks have, to a certain extent, already got the trust of their customers and the majority of AISPs and PISPs are likely to be new fintech start-ups. With some banks already being accused of issuing warnings about Open Banking which amount to "scaremongering", it seems likely that cautious customers will initially stay away from new service providers, leaving millennials to lead the way.

Conclusion

The phased roll-out of Open Banking, and the regulatory requirements placed on AISPs and PISPs, means that its impact will be more slow-burn than explosive. In five years' time, however, the retail banking landscape might look completely different. Adam Land, Senior Director at the CMA insists that "This is a major milestone. These reforms will transform retail banking, completely changing the way that people interact with their accounts…The possibilities are endless."

Whilst people may associate the word 'gig' with a live concert, the 'gig economy' actually refers to a labour market defined by a high number of short-term contracts, and/or freelance work. In 2017 The Royal Society for Arts, Manufacturing and Commerce estimated that 1.1 million people now work in the UK's gig economy, nearly as many workers as in the NHS England. Whilst traditional gig work included freelance designers and consultants, over 40% of the market is now made up of manual, personal, driving and delivery services; each ride, clean or DIY job counts as one 'gig'.

Two competing views about the gig economy have emerged in recent press. The first supports the innovative structure the gig economy provides, as individuals have the freedom to choose the days, time, and duration they work. The second viewpoint sees the gig economy as a form of exploitation that offers minimal workplace protection; based on the presumption that individuals are classified as independent contractors and consequently may not be entitled to a regular wage, holiday pay or sick pay.

As a result, the future of the gig economy has become a hot topic in both commercial and legal press, with judgments and articles being written on the employment status and treatment of workers, and the regulatory framework in which the gig economy operates.

Problems facing the gig economy

The status of individuals working for companies in the gig economy has been the subject of various legal disputes. For example in August, the Central London Employment Tribunal found independent contractors of one company to be 'workers', despite the wording of their contracts stating the contrary. This is an important finding as 'worker' status grants these individuals rights they would not otherwise have had as contractors. Consequently, these individuals may now be entitled to claim compensation for the benefits they previously missed out on. However, this is not harmonised across judicial decisions with employee status appearing like a tug-of-war between big business and the government. This is best shown by the decision involving Deliveroo, where the gig workers were not determined to be workers.

The gig economy has also faced criticism for its working model, though this has not yet been the subject of any court proceedings. There are concerns that gig work is exploitative and triggers a race to the bottom in terms of pay and conditions. The popularity of flexible working conditions creates a system whereby gig companies are able to undercut their competitors and remain successful whilst providing less protection for their gig workers.

The gig economy is also facing difficulties with the way it is regulated because companies that claim to operate solely in the digital space (via an app) have been declared by the courts to be fully operating businesses. For example, in December 2017, the ECJ ruled that Uber was officially a taxi company and not a digital service, a decision that could alter how Uber operates in the future and the way it liaises with national governments. In light of this decision, it is possible that other businesses who claim to solely operate in the digital space may also be declared by the courts to be fully operating businesses.

These developments are putting the spotlight firmly on the gig economy and there is no doubt that 2018 will crystallise further the currently unsettled legal space in which some digital businesses operate.

What does this mean?

Increased regulation of the gig economy will likely lead to further expenditure, which could result in companies limiting the amount of individuals they allow to work on their platforms. More concerning is the increasing number of countries that have banned apps that employ gig workers. Prime examples are the bans already in place in Italy and London, with Taxify being banned in the latter after just 3 days of operating. Further bans elsewhere could lead to apps and employers in the gig economy being frozen out of markets entirely, decreasing both competition and access to flexible work. The effects of higher regulation are double-edged as they not only impact the company but also take away a reliable source of income from gig workers.

However, change is needed, as gig workers can be exploited by those they work for, and are currently under-represented in parliamentary discussions concerning employment. In November 2017, a cleaner working for a Handy was blocked from working with a regular client and automatically fined £25 for not showing up when, in reality, the cleaner was ill. Despite the situation being rectified following a post on social media, it goes to show that both company and indeed government policies need to be updated in order to ensure that gig workers are protected.  

A look to the future

The gig economy has innovatively shaken the way employment, technology and consumer services operate, but the market could stagnate if policy doesn’t reflect the decisions individuals are making to involve themselves in this market. As long as imperative employment rights are adhered to, then workers should be free to choose when and how they work, and accept the possible uncertainty that comes with this choice.

How the gig economy deals with the twin pressures of increased government regulation and expectations of better rights for gig workers will play a crucial role in deciding whether these market-disrupting companies are here to stay, or whether they are simply a flash in the pan.

Cryptocurrencies

For those who are not familiar with the concept of cryptocurrencies, it is useful to briefly set out the basic terminologies.

I can do no better than to cite the following definitions:

• cryptocurrencies are "digital… currencies that are encrypted… using cryptography…" ;
• Bitcoin "represents the first decentralised cryptocurrency, which is powered by a public ledger that records and validates all transactions chronologically, called the Blockchain"; and
• a token is a "representation of a particular asset or utility" – it represents, in the abstract, "basically any assets that are fungible and tradeable, from commodities to loyalty points to even other cryptocurrencies."

Dynamics of an ICO

Like an IPO, the issuer of an ICO will issue "tokens" (as opposed to shares) to investors in exchange for fiat currencies (or even cryptocurrencies such as Bitcoin). The proceeds raised will then be used by the issuer to fund the development of, for example, a product, platform, or software, to which the token holders will then (usually) gain access. Liquidity of these tokens is also made possible by cryptocurrency exchanges such as Gatecoin, subject to the tokens being listed on these markets.

Successful examples

Many of these ICOs have proven to be very successful so far, with the top three ICOs raising over US$600 million in 2017, namely:

• Filecoin – a blockchain-based data storage: US$257 million;
• Tezos – a new blockchain aiming to be more reliable than Bitcoin or Ethereum: US$232 million; and
• Sirin Labs – plans to build a blockchain-based smartphone: US$157 million.

Legal and regulatory concerns

Despite the success of ICOs, the ICO market space is not without its legal and regulatory concerns. The intrinsically global nature of this kind of fundraising activity creates additional complexities, as an ICO project may be subject to different legal and regulatory treatments across various jurisdictions. This may be the case even if the issuer is conscious about basing the offering outside of a more restrictive territory, by incorporating the promoting vehicle in an ICO-friendly jurisdiction.

Complications arise because a regulator may decide to look past geographical borders and instead assert jurisdiction over the ultimate beneficial owner or holding entity of the promoting vehicle. For instance, the Secretary for Financial Services and the Treasury of Hong Kong has stated that parties engaging in "regulated activities" (explained below) are required to be licensed by the Securities & Futures Commission ("SFC"), regardless of whether the parties involved are located within the jurisdiction so long as the fundraising activities target the Hong Kong public.

In Hong Kong, the SFC issued a statement in September 2017 sounding a note of caution that digital tokens may be deemed as securities, as defined under the Securities and Futures Ordinance (Cap. 571). Particularly, tokens may be seen as:

• shares where the "tokens on offer represent equity or ownership interests in a corporation";
• debentures where the "issuer creates or acknowledges a debt or liability"; or
• interests in a collective investment scheme where "token proceeds are managed collectively by the ICO scheme operator to invest in projects with an aim to enable token holders to participate in a share of the returns provided by the project".

In these cases, the "dealing in or advising on the digital tokens, or managing or marketing a fund investing in such digital tokens, may constitute a regulated activity", which trigger licensing or authorisation requirements, or both. The SFC appears to have taken a fact-specific inquiry stance (a 'substance-over-form' approach) in this regard.

However, to date the SFC has not published any formal rules as to which ICO structures will fall within the reach of the prevailing securities law in Hong Kong. It is therefore imperative that potential ICO candidates take a cautious approach and seek adequate legal advice before engaging in these activities, whilst the regulatory landscape is still taking shape. This is especially so pending potential SFC enforcement actions against ICO issuers or ICO-related cases being litigated before the Hong Kong courts.

Litigation risks

Legal and regulatory issues aside, ICO issuers also face the risk of claims by investors. Take Tezos (referred to above) as an example. Despite its financial success, it is currently the subject of several class-action lawsuits in the US. Amongst other things, it was alleged that its founders were in breach of federal securities law and that they had defrauded their ICO investors. This case may open the floodgates to ICO litigation. And whatever the US court's ruling or the SEC's finding, it may inspire regulatory practices in Asia, making this an important space to watch.

ICOs represent an important and exciting development in capital-raising, and the opportunities they represent cannot be dismissed or ignored. However, given the regulatory uncertainty, any business contemplating conducting an ICO should ensure that it is fully aware of the risks associated with doing so and that it takes steps to mitigate those risks.

There was an overwhelming "no" in response to the question of whether Jeremy Corbyn will ever be Prime Minister, but if the last few years are anything to go by, we should not dismiss any eventuality completely. One trainee foresaw David Miliband returning to the political stage, but perhaps that was more a wish than a prediction.

Those who believe in the prophetic powers of the trainees will be relieved to hear that the UK will not be going into a recession in 2018. That is according to the majority of trainees who tried their hand at economic forecasting. However, a pessimistic minority believe that we will slide into a recession at some point over the next year.

US Politics:

You know it's going to be an interesting year when one of the questions on the trainee prediction survey involves a pre-emptive nuclear strike by the United States. Reassuringly, most (but not all) thought a strike on North Korea was unlikely, perhaps because the President's focus will be on preventing an implosion – that of his administration – rather than ordering the opposite.

While it's thought the Russian "witch hunt" won't bring any blockbuster moments in 2018  (such as impeachment), the domestic pressure will continue to increase, particularly around the 2018 mid-term elections, where the Republican majorities in the Senate and House could be at risk. If the Democrats succeed in November, we might see the first 2020 Presidential election challengers throw their hats into the ring. The trainees have predicted that those hats could belong to Michelle Obama, Oprah, Dwayne 'The Rock' Johnson or (slightly terrifyingly) Kanye West.

As for whether we'll get a front row seat to the Trump show this year, the trainees predict a UK visit. Despite Theresa May's offer of a full 'State Visit', the US Commander-in-Chief has already put off trips here, apparently due to concern about negative covfefe coverage and mass protests. But The Donald is nothing if not unpredictable, so to borrow his favourite phrase, "we'll see what happens"…

Legal and Business:

Perhaps one of the most interesting topics in the legal sphere this year will be the potential exit deal between the EU and the UK, and whether Parliament will refuse to accept the deal put forward by Theresa May. While a few trainees think any deal will be accepted as "it's all gone too far for anyone not to", most think the "whole sorry affair" will drag on into next year and 2018 won't see the UK any closer to reaching a Brexit deal.

Without the stability of the EU, the overwhelming majority of trainees predict the pound becoming weaker against the Euro; sad news for those of us planning our summer holidays!

Tech:

Our estimations of the price of one bitcoin on NYE 2018 vary widely from £0 to £18,200, but there is no doubt that most of us will not be buying-in this year: the vast majority of guesses fall below £1 and our average prediction of £3,564.57 is well below the current price (at the time of writing – an important disclaimer). One trainee is so sure of a crypto-crash they suggested that a new concept of InsolvencyTech will be necessary to deal with the fallout.

In terms of 2018 tech developments, our key expectations are driverless vehicles, additional utilisation of blockchain technology, and enhanced digital assistants (preferably to the extent that "nobody ever needs to get up"). One particularly entrepreneurial trainee had an excellent idea, which we think they should definitely put into action at RPC: the creation of "automated bundling".   

Entertainment:

With Prince Harry and Meghan Markle set to marry on 19 May 2018, trainees are predicting that somewhere between 2 million and 3 billion viewers will tune in to watch the ceremony live. Although we didn't quite reach an agreement on the exact number, general consensus seems to be 'a lot', though one trainee thinks it will be "fewer than for W&K".

There was also a variety of guesses for which film will win best picture at the Oscars, with 'Get Out' and 'Three Billboards' coming out on top. Most trainees agreed that the ceremony will be free from blunders, perhaps because "they might rely on Alexa to do it for us", though the possibility of a "fake blunder" was also suggested, to keep us all entertained. And finally – Ed Sheeran: trainees have predicted Ed will have two number one singles this year, though some suggested it may be time for his chart domination to end as "he is getting married – he has no time for writing music!"

Sport:

2018 will not see a repeat of 1966. Pessimistically, not a single trainee has predicted England going beyond the quarterfinals at the World Cup, and the majority have predicted a group stage exit. However, what is certain is the endless build-up coverage, with the press over-hyping England's chances before the team eventually falls to supposedly lesser footballing nation. A post-World Cup sacking of Gareth Southgate should not be ruled out, which would inevitably be followed by mass speculation over who will take on this poisoned chalice.

On a more positive note, the trainees are optimistic of a golden success for Team GB at the Winter Olympic Games. Curling is the sport of choice, which last saw GB take home the gold in 2002 with Rhona Martin's last throw of the final.

Rather unsurprisingly, Man City has been chosen to win the Premier League. One trainee has gone bold and predicted a Burnley comeback, even though they are yet to win a match in 2018. Could 2018 see one of the biggest comebacks of all time?

The Business Blog Editorial Team

Nigel Farage’s year didn’t pan out quite as the trainees predicted, with no reality TV show appearances for the former UKIP leader, who instead gave an interview in December 2017 describing himself as “53, separated and skint.”  Instead, the mantle of the ‘straight talking politician’ has been passed to Jeremy Corbyn, his political opponent, on almost all issues.

The trainee predictions about the legal world, however, were spot on. We correctly foresaw that the Supreme Court would uphold the High Court’s decision in R (on the application of Miller and another) v Secretary of State. 

In making predictions for 2017, no one foresaw that a General Election would be held. In such uncertain times, who can predict with any certainty that there will not be another in 2018 – especially were Theresa May to step down as Prime Minister after negotiating a transition deal for leaving the EU.

US Politics:

Given the bizarre state of US politics these days, the like, really smart RPC Trainees did unexpectedly well in predicting 2017's wild ride. The Trump Administration's primary successes so far have indeed been domestic, where we've seen federal courts stacked with strongly conservative judges, and the extremely business-friendly tax cuts helping along (or at least not disrupting) rapid stock market growth.

As for failings, the finger was rightly pointed at Trump's own, and their habit of tapping out inflammatory tweets. As predicted, his statements (both live and via Twitter), do appear to have lowered America's standing in the world, and at least raised fears of global conflict - perhaps via his big nuclear button. What wasn't anticipated, though, and is perhaps most interesting for lawyers, is how these statements have also been cited by numerous US Courts in blocking signature immigration policies such as the "Muslim Ban". On the whole, though, while some might unfairly label them FAKE NEWS, the predictions were pretty good. Smart!

Legal and Business:

"FTSE 100 ends 2017 at new record high" was the headline a few weeks ago as trading closed before the New Year; far from the pessimistic outlook forecast by trainees. Trainees were correct to predict that the uncertainty surrounding UK's relationship with Europe may impact the UK's economic prospects. In 2017, the UK's growth dropped below all other G7 economies. However, the progress made in respect of Brexit negotiations with the European Union following an agreement on the first phase of the Brexit deal was suggested to assist the FTSE 100 at the end of December.

As for Article 50, which trainees predicted would have significant ramifications, this was triggered on 29 March 2017. At this stage it is unclear precisely what deal will be reached with the EU. Parliament are to have a "take it or leave it" vote on the deal agreed by Theresa May with the EU. There is also to be a new Act of Parliament containing any transitions.

Tech:

The trainees were spot-on with their prediction that cyber-security would be a key topic in the world of tech in 2017: it felt like the number of reported attacks, leaks and other data breach disasters increased exponentially over the course of the year. Fingers crossed that the increased frequency and awareness of breaches, coupled with the nigh-implemented GDPR, trigger greater protection in the forthcoming year.

The canny trainees who forecast the increased integration of digital assistants were probably feeling very smug over the holiday season as, time and again, products such as Amazon Echo and Google Home were cited as top Christmas gifts. What we didn't predict was just how integrated these assistants would become – some commentators are already comparing them to virtual butlers, based on their ability to control everything from microwaves to toilets.

One key area which was missed by the RPC trainees was the colossal increase in the value of Bitcoin and other crypto-currencies, but we will give ourselves a break: considering that many regard this rise as mere speculation it was a particularly difficult one to guess. In any case, if we had known that at some point this year the value would be 20 times higher than it was in January we probably wouldn't be writing this…

Entertainment:

Memorable headlines in the entertainment industry in 2017 included the colossal Oscar mishap in which 'La La Land' was mistakenly named best picture; Disney's decision to purchase Fox for $52bn; the wave of high profile allegations against Hollywood's Harvey Weinstein; and Stanley Johnson asking if his son was "still foreign secretary" upon leaving 'I'm a Celeb'.

In other news, Ed Sheeran beat chart records in March with 16 songs in the UK Singles Chart top 20, leading to a shake-up of the rules by the Official Charts Company to stop the Ed Sheeran effect. Elsewhere, Netflix original content continued to boom and the highest grossing film of the year was Disney's recreation of 'Beauty and the Beast' (a scary thought that the next generation will know Emma Watson not as Hermione Granger but as Belle!).

Sadly, the trainees were wrong to predict a new baking show on BBC to replace the beloved GBBO.  Instead, the Bake Off continued on Channel 4 – albeit with a lot of adverts and without Mel, Sue and Mary Berry. The end of the year was more positive, as David Attenborough returned to our screens with 'cute fish' in Blue Planet II rather than the predicted 'cute animals'. And finally – 'trendy foods' predictions: the avocado phase is still going strong, decorative seeds continue to grace Instagram and veganism is on the rise.

Sport:

The trainees were correct in predicting Chelsea as Premier League victors. The lack of support for Tottenham due to their history of poor season finishes proved well-founded, after they choked against West Ham as the season climaxed. Unfortunately for that one hopeful trainee who backed Middlesbrough, the fondly-named Boro ended up at the other end relegated.

Elsewhere in sport notable highlights over 2017 included: Serena Williams winning the Australian Open while pregnant; the retirement of Usain Bolt coupled with the scandal of Justin Gatlin; the climactic finish to the Augusta Masters that saw Garcia finally win a major; an unknown local winning the Venice marathon after the lead runners went the wrong way; and Italy failing to qualify for the World Cup.

For the RPC trainees' 2018 predictions, check out Trainees Take on Business blog coming soon!

By Daisy Fulton, Anna Greco, Sarah Newby, Sami Thompson, Leah Wood and Matthew Plampton.

The term "Big Data" refers to the increasingly widespread practice of collecting, storing and analysing vast complex data sets to extract value. Back in 2001, analyst Doug Laney first identified the three elements of Big Data: Volume, Velocity and Variety. Big Data offered new opportunities for business, most notably the creation of the digital advertising industry as we know it. Digital advertising relies on analysing data generated by individuals, such as particular browsing patterns, to identify appropriate targets for advertisements. For instance, people who search for kitchen knives often also buy recipe books – companies can then use this information to ensure that their advertising budget is used effectively. Of course, where Big Data really added value was in uncovering less obvious associations, allowing companies to capitalise where competitors did not.

Development of Big Data

Since the birth of Big Data, data production rates have risen exponentially; a mobile phone alone monitors every keystroke, not to mention using the camera, microphone, GPS and motion sensors to gather data. With this rapid generation, we've seen far more sophisticated utilisation of Big Data, both for businesses and individuals. The market for Big Data software and hardware is estimated to grow to £128bn in 2018.

One major area of development has been in healthcare analytics, where data can be used to reduce costs of treatment, predict outbreaks of epidemics and make early diagnoses. In Paris, a number of hospitals have trialled the use of data from a range of sources to predict patterns in admissions, allowing hospital management to effectively distribute staff and resources which has resulted in better patient care.

Privacy concerns

While the potential for Big Data is undeniably exciting, concerns about privacy cannot be ignored. Current Big Data does not necessarily comprise the kind of personal data we might be naturally wary about sharing, such as addresses, dates of birth, race, religion or sexuality, but rather more nuanced information we don't typically notice we are providing but which amounts to personal data nonetheless. 

On the face of it, Big Data preserves privacy by detaching information from individuals and repurposing it. However, by taking multiple anonymised data sets and triangulating them, you can begin to break down that anonymity. For instance, take information about all the journeys that people in London have taken over the past year from a taxi service. This data alone is not necessarily sensitive, but if you combine it with venue information and social media, you could conceivably make assumptions about an individual who, say, ended or began journeys at a known LGBT destination. 

A real-life example of this invasion of privacy occurred in 2012 when it was revealed that Target, the US supermarket chain, used customers’ shopping habits to identify a list of products which, when analysed together, assigned each shopper a “pregnancy prediction” score. Purchases of unscented lotion, supplements and cotton wool balls indicated a shopper may be pregnant and Target were even able to predict a woman’s due date to within a small window, allowing them to send her coupons timed to specific stages of pregnancy. The system worked so well that Target were able to predict a teenager’s pregnancy and send coupons for baby clothes to her home before even her father was aware she was pregnant.

Legal change

The General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) will come into force on 25 May 2018 and aims to strike a balance between protecting our privacy and encouraging valuable Big Data use. Businesses which currently make use of Big Data will be forced to review their systems and ensure they have the relevant consents and/or protections in place. 

One of the principal focuses of the GDPR is strengthening the rights of data subjects. Under the GDPR, it will be unlawful to automatically process data where it has a legal or otherwise significant effect on the individual, unless certain exceptions apply. The Regulation also introduces the concept of ‘pseudonymised’ data,  data which cannot be attributed to a particular person without using additional information; this data is not classified as ‘personal’ and its processing is permitted where the additional identifiers are stored separately and securely.

Conclusion

The struggle between the need to protect privacy and allowing Big Data to continue to improve the way we live without quashing innovation is unlikely to be resolved easily. It remains to be seen how effective the GDPR will be in achieving either of these aims. One thing that’s certain is that our data production will not slow down and neither will the development of new ways to use it – legislators face an uphill battle to keep pace.

It is a fundamental of democracy that the media is largely unfettered, and it is correct that this remains unchanged and celebrated. This principle is supported by Article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR). However, the ECHR also supports the right to a fair trial under Article 6. The tricky part comes in balancing these two rights when they indirectly undermine one another.

The problem

Picture the position where a well-known celebrity stands trial: social media will instantly come alive with salacious gossip regarding their past and almost everyone across the globe will likely have an opinion about their alleged guilt. This blanket of information is prejudicial which is why the assertion of guilt by a publisher is prohibited under section 2 of the Contempt of Court Act 1981.

However, the collective power of social media users remains broadly untouched by section 2, and here we have 'trial by social media'. The Court of Appeal attempted to deal with a similar situation in R v F ex parte BBC, but the decision did not fully resolve the issue as the Court invited the Attorney General to investigate the extent of the problem.

The Attorney General announced  in September 2017 the launch of a consultation into social media’s effect on the fair trial process. It has long been established that 'trial by the media, is not to be permitted in this country', but now it is time for the law to catch up and ensure that trial by social media does not happen.

The importance of social media

The power and importance of social media has been highlighted recently by the uncovering of the Hollywood sexual harassment scandal, as social media gave a voice to the suppressed and fearful. We therefore want to avoid a position where the law chills the use of social media. It is a powerful tool and everyone should have this unfettered right. However, we still need to have an objective unbiased jury, who make their decision purely on the facts they hear at trial.

Juror misconduct

Research conducted in 2010 found that 12% of jurors during high-profile cases conducted their own internet research, despite the judge’s instructions. Furthermore, given that a reported 56% of the population get their news from social media, we are potentially in a situation where at least one jury member in every trial is accessing social media to research a case.

In recent years we have also seen jurors attempt to contact defendants on social media, but none quite compare to the juror who set up an online poll publishing all the evidence, and then asking for her friends to cast a guilty or not guilty vote.

The solution

In an era where the temptations of social media appear to be too much for some jurors, is the fair trial process being undermined? Should individual users now find themselves in contempt if they post online whether they think someone is guilty? Or should the social media giants face the music too?

Neither option is entirely satisfactory. The power of social media comes from the many voices, thus, the imputation of guilt comes from thousands of different users’ opinions, not just one on their own. It is unlikely that your average social media post would ever have a big enough impact to create a substantial risk on its own despite the Court of Appeal's threat in R v F ex parte BBC; instead it is the collective effect of the many.

Placing the burden entirely on the social media companies has the potential to cause a chilling effect or censor material too far, which is the complete opposite of what social media aims to achieve.

In the short term, neutralising solutions should include a stronger use of sections 69-72 of the Criminal Justice and Courts Act 2015, by putting jurors on a social media blackout for the duration of high profile trials. In addition, better education is needed to make members of society clearly aware of their duties as jurors, as neutralising instructions given by a judge on day one of the trial are often too late and may be ineffective.

AI

There could be a long-term solution which removes the need for juries altogether. Software developed by scientists at UCL in 2016 was able to predict with 79% accuracy cases heard before the European Court of Human Rights. The cases ranged from privacy matters to torture, and dealt with complex factual patterns. A similar study was conducted in the US Supreme Court, with very similar results.

Given that jurors are less able to be objective and unbiased in an era of social media, is it time to give AI a try? Ultimately, relying on software to determine a trial opens a whole series of other issues, including ownership, appeals, and the role of judges and lawyers. Furthermore, the software will need years of development and testing before a defendant’s liberty is in the hands of a computer. A medium-term solution could be to use it concurrently with juries to identify where social media bias may have skewed the outcome.

However bold this solution may appear, it is important for the law to be proactive rather than reactive in dealing with the ever-changing world of modern media.

Whether Trump is the right man to solve the problem or not, protecting IP rights in Asia, and particularly in China, is an ongoing challenge for Western companies. The NY Times calculates that IP theft costs the US an eye-watering $600 billion a year.

A tale of two factories

Within China, more than 40% of goods sold online are counterfeit. These range from amusing rip-offs, like McRonalds, Dolce & Banana and Michaelsoft Binbows, to believable fakes of expensive goods, such as Apple and Ralph Lauren. This is perpetrated broadly by two groups:

The first are competitors who release imitations of a product under their own brand, having discovered the design online or through reverse engineering. Ideas like StikBox, a smartphone case with a built-in selfie stick, or the Fidget Cube, a focus-inducing desk toy, were poached from Kickstarter campaigns and put on Amazon and eBay at huge discounts before the originals had even been made. This demonstrates how developed some counterfeiters' supply chains are.

The second group, more problematically, are the Chinese factories that contract with international companies. Some stay running after hours, selling on their surplus or creating derivative products which cut out the original IP right-holder. The problem for Western companies is that they are essentially teaching their Chinese factories the intricacies of their product and how to compete against them. Some copies of luxury goods, called yuanduan, are reputedly better than the originals.

Enforcing IP rights in China

China has always strongly denied any accusations of IP theft. However, their government is tacitly addressing the problem: it has increased the number of specialist IP courts and raised the damages available for infringement and the fines applicable to counterfeiters. The Commerce Ministry also recently announced a four-month crackdown on IP theft.

China has traditionally been seen as a difficult jurisdiction to enforce IP rights in. When Jaguar Land Rover tried to challenge an almost-identical copycat of their Range Rover Evoque called 'Land Wing', they had their design patent cancelled and their copyright claim dismissed. Apple last year infamously lost a trademark fight with Xintong Tiandi over the use of the mark 'IPHONE' on leather goods. General Motors only reached an out-of-court settlement with Chery after they proved that the infringing vehicle had interchangeable doors with their product, and that they had ordered identical parts.

However, there are signs that this is also changing. Foreign companies had an 81% success rate against domestic firms in patent cases in 2015 (Chinese patents are more wide-ranging than in England, and also cover design rights). New Balance were recently awarded a record sum in China of almost $1.5 million after a successful trade mark claim, whilst Michael Jordan was able to stop the unauthorised use of his name on products by a Chinese company.

So what next?

A recurrent issue for foreign companies is that Chinese law compels them to enter into a joint venture with a local company to do business in the country. Chinese cybersecurity law also requires foreign companies in China to disclose critical intellectual property to the government and store their data locally. These laws inevitably lead to serious confidentiality problems.

As well as proactively registering all rights locally and internationally, companies operating in China should therefore also push for 'NNN agreements'. These not only include non-disclosure agreements, but also non-circumvention and non-competition. An NNN agreement would help prevent their Chinese manufacturing partners from using a company's intellectual property as a weapon should they try to go into business against them. Experience shows that it is better to be over-zealous with contractual obligations and registrations than the alternative, which can lead to foreign companies being caught out.

The rise of the cashless payment

The first general issue credit card in the UK was introduced by Barclaycard in 1966, with debit cards following in 1987. It has now been a decade since the contactless card, and there are now over 108 million contactless cards in circulation within the UK. After the contactless card came the mobile payment, and now spending on all forms of contactless systems (both cards and mobiles) accounts for 35% of all non-cash transactions in the UK.

Non-cash transactions are seen as more practical than carrying cash in your pocket. Contactless transactions are easier still, bypassing the two or three seconds it takes to insert a PIN number. Ultimately, consumers are always looking for ways to improve their spending experience.

The impact on businesses

In 2014, Transport for London banned cash on buses across London. At the time there was outrage, but now the thought of trying to pay the bus driver is ludicrous. Cashless payments are more convenient and efficient, preventing delays. Indeed, since 2014, Transport for London claims to have saved £24m in cash-handling costs alone.

While larger businesses can benefit from greater savings and economies of scale of cashless technology costs, the additional costs of electronic transactions are unaffordable for some smaller businesses. Smaller retail and hospitality outlets are struggling to maintain profits and footfall in a society where cashless technology is expected by consumers who do not want to traipse to find an ATM.

The impact on personal finance

Currently, many banks and card companies offer cashback on purchases made with cards, meaning that consumers effectively receive a discount on their transactions. Arguably, this encourages people to spend more on their cards to receive greater discounts.

Non-cash payments are seen as more secure, with less chance of a consumer losing money in the street or being pickpocketed. Additionally, all payments can be traced, so it is more difficult for a consumer to be the victim of fraud.

However, a big impact on personal finance is that people can easily lose track of how much they are spending. Card-users can go for weeks or longer without checking how much they have spent; when you "tap and go" using your card or mobile, it is easy to become complacent and over-spend.

The Office for National Statistics recently announced that household savings had dropped in the first quarter of 2017 to the lowest rate in 40 years – just 1.7% of overall income compared to 3.3% in the previous quarter. In an economy where household spending is rising to unprecedented heights, consumers cannot afford to neglect their long term savings due to the ease with which they are able to spend.

Other impacts

Some sectors in particular are struggling with the move towards a cashless society; charitable organisations, for example, are finding it increasingly difficult to fill their donation boxes in public areas. Some charities have tried to adapt by fundraising with contactless devices; however, the transaction fees for each donation ultimately decrease the amount the charity receives.

There is also a worry that a cashless society will increase society's wealth divide; there will be no spare change for the homeless, the local busker or the market stall owner. A drastic example is India recently demonetising its economic system by removing the two most widely used bills from circulation overnight. Many of India's working poor relied almost exclusively on cash with no banking facilities; the majority of their money became worthless and they had to rely on a black market of exchange to receive smaller notes at unfavourable rates.

Conclusion

Blockchain

What is it?

A "blockchain" is a way of distributing information between a network of people in a way which is traceable, transparent, and cannot be retrospectively amended.

In a blockchain each "block" (chunk of data) has a unique signature and contains information. This information can only be amended by creating a new block which links to the previous, creating a "chain". Other rules can also be added to the system, such as incorporating the names of parties who amend the information into the blocks.

Information in a blockchain is saved on a "distributed ledger", a copy of which is given to all participants in a (private or public) network. Consequently, the blockchain is visible to all participants and, as blocks cannot be amended but only added, data cannot be retrospectively altered.

Examples

Blockchain can be used to reduce paper-based information, distribute information quickly to others, and reduce the risk of lost documentation or duplication of claims.

Information in a blockchain can also be audited or analysed to, for example, quickly find the number of claims under a policy or total amount paid under a policy. The auditability of blockchain has led to the FCA promoting its adoption.

Smart contracts

What is it?

A "smart contract" is a contract based on a blockchain containing self-executing clauses. The blockchain element ensures the contract is tamper-proof and the self-executing clauses automate processes.

Examples

Smart contracts can provide visibility and certainty over terms in complex negotiated multi-party contracts, automate payments when certain conditions are satisfied, and provide an auditable trail of an insurance claim. It was recently used in a flight-delay insurance product and piloted in a multinational commercial insurance policy.

AI/Machine Learning/Predictive Coding

What is it?

Whilst there are technical differences, AI, machine learning, and predictive coding are often used interchangeably to describe a process of automating a repetitive task in a manner which allows 'experience' from each repetition to improve the overall process.

The concepts refer to a computer's ability to review a data set, understand how it should be processed by following instructions or comparing a human-reviewed data set, and then make predictions on that data, often in an iterative process.

Examples

Machine learning could be used to quickly recognise fraudulent claims or claims which can be fast-tracked, automate elements of a standardised claims process, or create chat bots to deal with queries (possibly as part of the claims or distribution process). Machine learning can also be used to help underwriters quickly process data on a risk and therefore price risks more effectively and competitively.

Most famously, IBM Watson uses vast stores of data to answer questions based on probabilities.

Data analytics/"big data"

What is it?

Data analytics and "big data" are also often used interchangeably. They have different meanings but both relate to describing new insights into data.

"Big data" refers to large datasets which can now be captured, far beyond previous generations of paper-based information and using much smaller memory devices. "Data analytics" refers to the ways we can analyse this data, which have grown exponentially over the past few decades.

Examples

New ways we gather data and its transmission to insurers has led to innovative insurance products and techniques, such as motor insurance by the journey, analysing historic solar data to insure solar energy output, and using facial recognition to estimate life expectancy.

So what does it all mean?

As insurtech continues its growth throughout London, and the rest of the world, these concepts will help to make insurance cheaper, more efficient, and more innovative for everyone.

One thing seems clear: the battle for the Asian e-commerce market is hotting up. But why are such large household names flocking to South East Asia (and Singapore in particular) and what does this reveal about the opportunities for growth in the region's internet economy?

E-conomy

A recent report conducted by Google and Singapore-based wealth fund Temasek, suggests that South East Asia is the fastest growing internet economy in the world with 3.8 million users 'coming online' every month. Astonishingly, this internet economy is expected to reach $200 billion by 2025, largely driven by the growth in the e-commerce market. Indeed, the Singapore e-commerce market alone is expected to expand by 11.2% by 2021 which would bring it up-to-speed with both Canada and Australia.

Unlocking Growth

But what exactly is driving such seismic growth in the region? Commentators have pinpointed a number of factors which, when combined, provide fertile ground for e-commerce companies seeking international expansion. First, South East Asia has a thriving, young demographic with over 70% of the region's population under 40. Combine this with a burgeoning and affluent middle class and rapidly increasing internet access across the region (it is expected that over 80% of South East Asia will have internet access by 2025), and it is easy to see why the South East Asian region offers e-commerce operators such a healthy new consumer market to tap into.

Limited access to 'bricks and mortar' retail stores in the region (particularly in the more remote islands of Indonesia and the Philippines) also makes online shopping an attractive proposition. Further, the anticipated move away from 'Cash on Delivery' payment channels to a more effective e-payment ecosystem means that the risk for e-commerce merchants delivering to these new Asian markets is reduced.

The Singapore Appeal

It is no coincidence that the likes of Amazon and Alibaba have chosen Singapore for their South East Asian debuts. With its more westernised culture of consumer consumption, established e-payment system and its position as a regional hub, the Singapore market offers tech giants an appealing environment in which to test-bed strategies before building out their regional services. With commercial sensitivities around data protection also keenly felt by many e-commerce providers, Singapore's more robust cybersecurity landscape offers companies more reassurance than other parts of South East Asia. Henry Low, director of Amazon Prime's Singapore operations, has described the city-state's appeal: "Singapore consumers are busy; they love convenience and love the idea of having a range of products… This matches [Amazon's] proposition exactly."

Indeed all the signs suggest that investment in Singapore is a strategic move. Within the first few days of the launch of its 2-hour Prime Now delivery service in Singapore, the Prime Now App was downloaded over 11,000 times and Amazon was so overwhelmed by orders that it was forced to hire Uber drivers to help fulfil its deliveries.

Watch this Space

If the stats are anything to go by, the future of the e-commerce market in Singapore and the wider South East Asian region looks bright. Growing numbers of e-commerce providers entering the market can only be good news for customers as this will inevitably encourage fiercer competition and enhance consumer choice. What remains to be seen is how the battle for the Asian e-commerce market will affect the hundreds of Asian start-ups also trying to break into this space. Will they, like Lazada, be able to ride on the waves of the e-commerce movement or will they be forced to consolidate and/or be subsumed by larger regional players?

Time will tell, but for now retail-loving Singaporeans are enjoying the benefits of Amazon's rapid delivery service. Amazon's ever-increasing dominance continues; although it's early days, all the signs suggest that the company's investment looks set to pay off. With this in mind, it's likely to be just a matter of time before other big players follow suit. Watch this space.

However, despite the public's appetite for law on TV, most of England and Wales' court rooms are banned from broadcasting court proceedings. Why?

Cameras in the courtroom

In June, Lord Pannick QC called for restrictions on broadcasting of court proceedings to be reconsidered. Lord Pannick has experienced cameras in the courtroom first hand – he represented Gina Miller in her Supreme Court case against the Government on Article 50, which was live streamed over the internet to the delight of constitutional law nerds worldwide.

Section 41 of the Criminal Justice Act 1925 and section 9 of the Contempt of Court Act 1981 prohibit the recording and broadcasting of proceedings of a court or tribunal in England and Wales. There are exceptions. The Supreme Court has been outside this restriction since its creation. Footage from the Court of Appeal has also been broadcast since 2013, due to section 32 of the Crime and Courts Act 2013 which allows exemptions to the ban. However, there are restrictions to filming in the Court of Appeal – recording is limited to lawyers' submissions, their exchanges with the court, and the court's judgment. Broadcasts of proceedings cannot be made for "light entertainment" or "satire".

Cameras remain banned from other English and Welsh courts, although moves towards the extension of cameras from the Court of Appeal and Supreme Court are being made. In a 2016 pilot scheme, several Crown Courts were filmed for the first time, albeit covering only judges' sentencing remarks. In Scotland the situation is different: since 1992 broadcasters have been allowed to apply to televise trials, if all parties involved give their consent. In reality, permission is given infrequently.

Order, order... me some popcorn?

The arguments for and against the broadcasting of trials are well trodden. Lord Pannick argues that "open justice should be open to the cameras". The argument is a compelling one. The broadcast of trials, complete with adequate protection for witnesses, could increase confidence in the court system, encourage transparency and inform viewers about the legal process. Members of the public are allowed to enter courtrooms in person and watch proceedings; why should we not be able to choose to watch in our own sitting rooms?

However, Lord Pannick's point of view is not held universally. Some fear the impact of cameras in the courtroom. Even if not shown on tape, witnesses may be less inclined to give evidence if cameras are present. Lawyers might be more inclined to "showboat" for viewers at home.

In 2013, Baroness Helena Kennedy QC spoke against the introduction of cameras into the courtroom, arguing that TV companies, which are desperate to broadcast criminal proceedings, would wield too much influence over the legal process. She suggested that the broadcasting of trials on TV will turn them into a spectacle; trials would be edited for dramatic effect, with legal realities distorted. Certainly, it is said that the OJ Simpson trial, and the media circus that surrounded it, severely undermined arguments for broadcasting from English and Welsh courts.

As for the difference between allowing the public into a courtroom and allowing the public to watch at home, Baroness Kennedy has suggested that one watches television in a different way from how one looks at real life. Certainly, in court, you are struck by the gravity of the moment. On television, court proceedings may just seem like a crime drama, the goriest or most star-studded cases proving the most popular. However, such fears may be underestimating the sophistication of viewers.

It is interesting to compare these debates to those which preceded the decision to broadcast proceedings from the Houses of Parliament. Whilst for some cameras in Parliament is the norm, it was not until the late 1980s that television broadcasting was permitted. Opponents presented similar arguments to those used by opponents to courtroom cameras, such as over-emphasis of the most dramatic moments of debates. Parliamentary proceedings and court proceedings are undoubtedly different in some respects, but in years to come, will opponents' arguments against cameras in court seem as regressive as arguments against cameras in Parliament?

For now at least, we must make do with fictionalised or reconstructed drama on the box, as opposed to the real thing.

To avoid feeling this way, consider the following meal suggestions.

Breakfast

This is the most important meal of the day. Researchers at Kings College London found that consuming breakfast cereal reduced attention deficit and sometimes prevented the deficit altogether. While cereal with wholegrain is an easy breakfast option, beware of the sugar content.

Porridge is another good choice as it is low in calories and will help you feel fuller for longer. Oats, as well as being high in fibre and protein, have a low glycaemic index which triggers the release of greater amounts of a hormone in the gut, delaying hunger pangs by creating a "full" sensation. Mix it up by adding fruit, nuts, coco or cinnamon.

If porridge is not to your taste, try low-fat natural yoghurt or Greek yoghurt which is a good source of calcium and protein. Consider adding fresh fruit or even pumpkin seeds for an added crunch – they're a nutritional powerhouse containing zinc, which is vital for enhancing memory and thinking skills, and stress-busting magnesium.

Lunch

Oily fish such as salmon, mackerel and sardines have a whole host of health benefits. They are a concentrated source of omega-3 fatty acids, which help rebuild brain cells, slow cognitive decline, and also strengthen the memory synapses in your brain. The protein also contains amino acids, which are essential for keeping the brain focused and sharp.

Try adding some spinach or broccoli to your lunch. Though we can't guarantee they will give you biceps of a Popeye scale, these greens are rich in iron and contain a range of vitamins, including vitamin A and vitamin K, known to enhance cognitive function and improve brainpower.

Eggs are a dense source of the omega-3 fatty acid and also contain choline, a compound that can help maintain healthy brain cell membranes.

Dinner (for those of us who are still in the office)

Dinner needs to be nutritionally balanced as well as being a sensible serving size - don't let that feeling of being so hungry you want to eat everything in sight ruin your diet!

Public Health England recommends we:

1. Eat at least five portions of a variety of fruit and vegetables every day;
2. Base our meals on starchy carbohydrates, choosing wholegrain and higher fibre versions where possible;
3. Have some dairy or dairy alternatives (such as soya drinks); and
4. Eat a variety of beans, pulses, fish, eggs, meat and other proteins (such as tofu and mycoprotein).

Aim to have at least three different kinds of food on your plate using a combination of the above. And if it's going to be a take away kind of night, here are some tips on what to order.

Snacks

Not a traditional snack, but insects (which are now sold in handy snack packs!) are considered highly nutritional; the majority of them are rich in protein, healthy fats, iron, and calcium, and low in carbohydrates.

If insects don’t tickle your taste buds then opt for fruit or nuts. Bananas are high in potassium which is an essential mineral crucial for keeping your brain, nerves, and heart healthy. Blueberries are high in antioxidants which boost memory. Almonds are high in calcium, which helps build healthy bones, and cashews are rich in magnesium, which is thought to improve recall and delay age-related memory loss.

Drink, drink, drink

Firstly, put down those energy drinks! They're often full of sugar and sugar-free options are loaded with chemicals.

Have plenty of water as thirst and dehydration can cause fatigue. If drinking water is not appealing, try adding a slice of lemon or a sprig of mint to make it more interesting.

For those in need of caffeine fix, try to avoid drinking coffee as it only dehydrates you further. Instead why not try green tea which contains a more modest amount of caffeine and is balanced by the amino acid theanine which improves mental alertness and focus. Alternatively, dark cocoa (the one without the sugar, unfortunately!) boosts serotonin and endorphin levels, which helps us concentrate better.

So why not try a green tea and banana this afternoon (rather than that coffee and cake!).

Beyond the traditional legal services hub of Hong Kong, some of our peers have launched offices in Mainland China. According to the list published by the PRC Ministry of Justice, 15 English law firms currently have offices in Beijing and 13 have offices in Shanghai.

Although the Chinese market offers boundless potential, there are various restrictions on the work of foreign firms. These restrictions, combined with the pressure on fees and bureaucracy, mean it is challenging for foreign firms to turn a profit.

The first challenge comes when a foreign firm is starting its business in China: it must submit its Chinese name to the authority. Since making up law firm names out of thin air is not prohibited in China, foreign law firms are free to pick any name which may resonate in the market. Such freedom has witnessed a booming of English creativity.

Broadly speaking, the following three strategies have been adopted by law firms:

Simply the pronunciation

Perhaps the most straightforward way to get Chinese clients to know an English brand is to use a combination of Chinese characters which carries little meaning but accurately reflects the pronunciation of the brand.

This is a very popular choice as it is less likely that a Chinese name would be subject to trade mark infringement or misunderstanding. Herbert Smith Freehills, Pinsent Masons, Hogan Lovells and Norton Rose Fulbright appear to have adopted this method.

Similar pronunciation plus some meaning

Other firms prefer using some Chinese characters which not only represent the pronunciation of their English names, but also carry some positive meaning. For example, Ince & Co is called "Ying Shi" (英士), which means "English gentlemen" whilst Clifford Chance calls itself "Gao Wei Shen" (高伟绅) – "tall and great gentlemen".

Others emphasise financial success - Freshfields is called "Fu Er De" (富而德) – "rich and moral" and Linklaters is "Nian Li Da" (年利达), which may be translated as "annual profit reached".

Just the meaning

A relatively bold move, but one that arguably pays off if done well, is to take a name which appears to have no link to the pronunciation of the firm's English name, but one which carries a deeper and cultural-related meaning. This would require extensive research into the local culture and industry practice.

A classic example is Bird & Bird. Its Chinese name is "Hong Hu" (鸿鹄) – both characters have their right half as "鸟", i.e. bird. The name derives from an ancient book of Confucianism and means "giant swans capable of flying high and long distances".

DLA Piper uses a different approach and is called "Ou Hua" (欧华), which simply means "Europe and China". Apparently, the name symbolises a bridge between Europe and China to attract more cross-jurisdictional work.

Although the capability of foreign law firms in China has traditionally been constrained, the recent liberalisation may in time open China's professional services sector to meaningful overseas participation, making the branding strategy of foreign law firms particularly important. With more English law firms entering this market, it will be interesting to see how they re-brand themselves so as to better entwine the world's second largest economy with global legal services.

The stats

However, despite this, in a recent House of Commons briefing paper published on 20 January 2017, it was revealed that only 35% of adults in the UK in 2015 were considered to be a healthy weight. The measure used in this study was BMI and whilst there are inherent problems with using BMI as a measure by itself, this still gives an indication of the gravity of the weight and lack of exercise problem in the UK. With a whopping 63% of us overweight, obese or morbidly obese, why is more not being done to tackle this problem? This is particularly the case considering that the significant physical and mental health benefits of exercise are now well understood.

What is being done/not done?

Education

Whilst the government has produced guidance on healthy living, the simplicity of the guidelines themselves calls into question the general level of education of the average adult around these issues. For example, the guidelines include the advice that "minimising sedentary behaviour may include: Reducing time spent watching TV, using the computer or playing video games." It might have been hoped that this was obvious. If not, now you know!

Conflicting guidance

There has also been some confusion between different guidance on offer. In 2015 the Telegraph published an article suggesting that we only need to do 20 minutes of exercise a week. According to Professor Philip Sparling at the Georgia Institute of Technology, this lower target was set as "older people in particular [are] daunted by the 150 minute target." Whilst the message that 20 minutes per week is better than nothing shouldn't be lost, telling us that this is sufficient when the NHS maintains that it is not does not help us. In fact it only contributes to public confusion around how much exercise is really required to support a healthy lifestyle. If 150 minutes of moderate aerobic exercise is needed to maintain health then it would be more beneficial to be clearly told this and for support to be given to help those who find this daunting.

Why don't we do more?

Why don't we do more? The classic excuses to avoid exercise tend to be that we're “too busy”, “too tired” or “don't enjoy it”. In reality, most of the time the majority of us are probably choosing to do other things that we think we will enjoy more than exercising. There are probably very few of us out there who couldn't build in 75 minutes a week of exercise without hugely impacting on the rest of our week. For example, running is considered a "vigorous aerobic exercise" and also a "strength exercise"; the upshot is that two 37.5 minute runs a week would get you over the guideline hurdle. This doesn't sound like a lot, but when it comes to putting on our trainers many of us will still find this unappealing.

Take away

What can we do? We need to try to motivate each other and remind ourselves of the importance of maintaining our health now. Many of us have sedentary jobs which often have hours exceeding the advertised 9-5. At the end of a hard day we feel like flopping in front of the telly, or going for a drink with friends, not donning the Lycra and hitting the gym. So why not exercise with your friends and make it a social event? There are plenty of recreational sports leagues in London where you can enjoy spending time with your friends while also working up a sweat. Or swap your northern line nightmare commute to work for an above ground cycle, brisk walk or run into the office. Whilst it might seem like a low priority now, your future self will thank you for looking after your health now!

]]>{0339965B-1D04-45E0-BA4C-FE56C25650B8}https://www.rpclegal.com/thinking/trainees-take-on-business/tackling-the-problem-of-fake-news/Thu, 08 Jun 2017 06:06:28 +0100Trainees take on businessWith the supposed effect on both Brexit and Trump, it is unsurprising that there are concerns about its potential influence on the UK General Election.

What is fake news?

Fake news is information that is not true but is published under the guise of being authentic news. Fake news stories generally fall into two categories: deliberately false stories; and stories that may have some truth to them but are not completely accurate.

The concern that fake news might affect the UK General Election has been raised by Damien Collins, a Conservative MP and the chairman of the Culture, Media and Sport Select Committee (which launched an inquiry into fake news in January). Mr Collins has warned that fake news could pose a threat to “the integrity of democracy” – using the example of the recent US election in which the top 20 fake news stories were 'shared' more than the top 20 most shared true stories. It seems Collins' concerns are felt by the British public – most British voters are concerned that fake news could influence the election and 21% of those polled admitted that fake news could influence their vote.

The phenomenon

But why has fake news become such a phenomenon when the tactic of spreading biased or misleading information for political gain is nothing new? It is propaganda - a tool which has been used in politics for years. The answer is simple: the internet. Social media provides a platform for the free, and largely unregulated, widespread dissemination of fake news stories. Further still, it enables content creators to generate revenue from advertising which is arguably the largest motivator for its distribution.

The fix?

So what is being done to tackle the problem? Facebook has implemented new measures to reduce its spread of fake news. The company has tweaked its algorithms to reduce the amount of false information users see on their news feeds and to track down and suspend fake accounts. It has also produced guidance for users on spotting fake news. This guidance is now displayed on Facebook and has also been published in national newspapers.

Similarly, Google announced last month that it was rolling out its “Fact Check” tag (previously only available in Google News) to its search results. This works by using an algorithm to judge whether sites are authoritative rather than fact checking the stories themselves. Information such as: the claim that is being made by a particular page or site; who is making the claim; and the truthfulness of that particular claim is displayed in a small snippet below the search result.

Both companies are also part-funding an initiative run by Full Fact and First Draft, two fact-checking organisations, to protect the UK General Election from fake news. As part of the initiative, professional fact checkers, economists and statisticians, assisted by software, work to identify and alert news desks in the mainstream media of fake news stories in circulation so that they can be discredited.

The end of the story?

In Germany, calls have been made for heavy fines to be levied against social media networks when they fail to police false reports, with some publishers believing that online platforms are ultimately responsible for what is published on them. Other campaigners have taken a less draconian stance arguing that social media platforms should instead be required to share data about online trends and habits to enable researchers to understand how false information is spread online and therefore identify solutions.

So what is the likely impact on the UK Election? Will Moy, a director at Full Fact, told the Press Gazette that “it’s more a case that somebody is wrong on the internet than fake news is in anyway systematically distorting the election”. He was careful to stress that it was still “early days” but, for the moment, it seems the biggest problem for the election on 8 June will be fake views, not fake news. Whether the steps being taken to tackle fake news are enough to effectively combat the problem and appease campaigners beyond the UK General Election remains to be seen. 

There is a strong possibility that if the person to emerge from the car door is Theresa May, she will lead a majority government. The last time that a single party was returned with a comfortable majority was in 2005 under Tony Blair. To critics, Parliament failed to scrutinise many of that government's decisions and there are understandable concerns that a firm electoral endorsement of a single party might lead to a similar situation.

Much of the election is presented as a presidential-style race, with all the associated trimmings (Channel 4's "May v Corbyn Live" a prime example). There is a natural subsequent assumption that the agenda is set solely by the incumbent of Number 10. Arguably that has not been true for the past seven years and is unlikely to be true after this election. If you want evidence of the slipping monopoly of Number 10 just look at the causes of this election.

The Brexit election

The reason we are here is Brexit - Theresa May's electoral announcement effectively said as much. A major reason for that is because a number of MPs from outside the Government were able to place pressure on David Cameron to demand a referendum on the issue; they were able to do so through the Backbench Business Committee. It allowed a core squad of eight MPs with a particular anti-EU passion to keep relentless pressure on the Government; tabling a debate and motion, then a campaign and finally a threatened amendment to the Queen's speech. The combined effect was to force David Cameron into promising a European referendum.

The opportunities provided by the Backbench Business Committee to guarantee floor time in the House of Commons should not be underestimated by anyone. If there is no strong majority government after the election these will only be amplified.

Beyond the Commons

It is not simply in the House of Commons that there has been constitutional evolution.

The House of Lords has become an increasingly active chamber, testing constitutional constraints to defeat the Government's plans for tax credit reform. Although they are unlikely to firmly resist Brexit, especially following a general election on the issue, that does not mean that they will not intervene on other matters on the domestic agenda. Last Parliament saw Lords propose laws on a number of controversial issues including: assisted dying; limiting the ability of the Government to deploy troops without Commons approval; and political lobbying.

Outside of Parliament, Gina Miller's successful case to demand a parliamentary vote in advance of the triggering of Article 50 led to a Supreme Court judgment which reaffirmed the courts' willingness to ensure that proper constitutional procedure is followed. In a time of large constitutional upheaval, the role of the constitutional lawyer is likely to be even more in demand.

Bringing it all together

Telling the future by looking at the past assumes that the conditions remain constant. This is like driving a car by looking in the rear-view mirror. Ignoring Herb Brody's dire warning, can any of this recent constitutional change be of use to the world beyond Westminster? Arguably yes.

 
While we are still in charge (or at least, while we’re allowed to think so), our robo-anxiety may be misdirected. A different robot has been hitting the headlines: the ‘Twitterbot’. These bots are a type of software, which run via a twitter account, and can be programmed to perform tasks automatically. They can be useful: @DearAssistant will reply with an answer to almost any question you could think to ask; or they can be bizarre - @everyailment has been tweeting every affliction listed in the International Classification of Diseases for the last 18 months. One significant study found that up to 15% of all twitter accounts are in fact automated bots.

Exciting the most passions, however, is the political Twitterbot. Social media has been praised for democratising debate, giving everyone a platform for their opinions. The problem comes from the fact that unlike humans, bots can voice their pre-programmed opinions more rapidly, more frequently and with (even) fewer consequences. The day before the 2016 US presidential election, a study found that there were 400,000 Twitterbots in operation, generating around 20% of all election-related messages. Another study found that bots which favoured Donald Trump outnumbered those supporting Hillary Clinton 5:1.

The research shows that a growing number of political movements, from the Venezuelan radical opposition to the campaign for Brexit, are making deliberate and strategic use of these bots to attempt to shape political debate and influence election results. Bots can quickly spread potentially damaging information, such as #MacronLeaks on the eve of the French election. They can also propagate so-called ‘fake news’, as with the fabricated story of the FBI agent murder-suicide connected to Mrs Clinton’s email disclosures. An enormous network comprising 350,000 dormant Twitterbots was recently unearthed. If so directed, these could be used to spread misinformation or to create a convincing, but entirely artificial, impression of public opinion.

Indeed, Twitterbots are becoming increasingly sophisticated in imitating their human counterparts. Bots are being retweeted at substantially the same rate as humans, suggesting that they are effective in hiding their algorithmic origins. Mr Trump has reportedly quoted from bot accounts 150 times, including one occasion where he was baited into citing @ilduce2016 – a bot which has been tirelessly forwarding him quotes from fascist dictator Benito Mussolini. This, and certain other bots, may be easy to distinguish as technological rather than biological, particularly those which tweet thousands of times per hour or produce nonsensical gibberish. Newer bots, however, can be more convincing. They can emulate human sleep by going offline for several hours, or pull pictures and information from online sources to look like real people. So, in addition to creating feasible trends en masse, we may soon be personally talking to, and absorbing opinions from, Twitterbots without ever realising it.

So what does this mean for the 2017 UK General Election? The answer is an unsatisfying, but resounding, ‘not sure’. It isn't that UK campaigning is immune to robotic electioneering; on the contrary, one study found that one third of all Twitter traffic concerning Brexit was most likely caused by bots. The best estimate for the present vote in June is that 12.3% of all election-related content is being generated by bots. The same study found that the parties' presence in the bot-scape was roughly equal, though Labour party accounts were more effective in spreading content.

What hasn't been shown, however, is whether Twitterbot activity actually makes any difference. Instinctively we might think it could. We expect people to vote based on the information they receive, and the opinions of those around them. If Twitterbots are spreading information relevant to the election, and pretending to be people with opinions, the implication is that voting will be affected. But there is no evidence for that conclusion. None of the studies cited above have proved a causal connection between automated tweeting and election outcomes. For that reason, and for general good sense, starring roles in action films should remain the preserve of the old-fashioned killer robot. At least for now.

The OBOR concept is rooted in the historic "Silk Road" trade network, which played a critical role in developing economic cooperation between China and other countries. It is hoped that OBOR will achieve the same objective in the 21st century.

What's the purpose of the OBOR?

According to the Chinese government, the key aims of the OBOR are:

1. Policy coordination: to promote inter-governmental cooperation and assist policy exchange and communication;
2. Facilities connectivity: to carry out infrastructure projects, e.g. relating to transportation and energy;
3. Unimpeded trade: to encourage cross-border investments and reduce trade barriers;
4. Financial integration: to develop the currency and bond markets in Asia; and
5. People-to-people bonds: to facilitate cultural exchange through cooperation in academia, tourism, medicine, science and technology.

From a cultural perspective, it is worth noting that all of these objectives embrace harmony,which reflects the deep-rooted Confucian concept of He (harmony) in human relationships.

So, where's the investment potential?

In December 2014, China contributed US$40 billion to establish a "Silk Road Fund" to implement the OBOR initiative. The fund's first investment is the US$1.65 billion Karot hydropower project in Pakistan. The People's Bank of China heralded the dam a "great match" between the development strategies of the two countries. Other on-going projects include electricity and energy development and railway construction.

As shown in a PwC report published last year, the OBOR initiative creates ample opportunities across many sectors including transportation, logistics, construction and private equity. What is clear is that at the heart of the initiative is a commitment to improve people's quality of living through economic cooperation. Wang Yangzhi, the President of the Silk Road Fund, has summed this up:

"Infrastructure is a core focus area due to the connectivity requirements of OBOR, but there are many areas that are important such as transportation, power generation and water. All these are very close to people’s lives."

What should foreign investors be aware of?

With rapid growth in many economies along the Belt and Road, coupled with relatively low labour costs and tax benefits, the OBOR initiative is extremely attractive to foreign investors. There are, however, a number of issues for investors to consider.

For OBOR investors, it is important to understand the foreign nations' tax systems, which significantly affect the profitability and capital return of their investments. The terms of employment contracts with local staff should be carefully drafted such that local labour requirements are satisfied, for example in relation to the minimum wage and insurance cover. Foreign investors should also be aware of the cultural differences between local and overseas employees. Finally, it is critical that a suitable corporate structure is selected to comply with local legal requirements and accommodate the investor's business needs.

Nowadays, foreign investors enjoy international legal protection through various bilateral and multilateral investment treaties. These agreements provide protection against certain adverse actions taken by the local government. Typical protections include fair and equitable treatment of foreign investment and compensation for expropriation of the investor's property by the government. Subject to the terms of the applicable treaty, investors may also be able to bring a claim against the government through international arbitration.

With the development of OBOR, we can expect huge investment opportunities to arise over the next couple of years – and it will be exciting to see how the new Silk Road set up by China is going to change the world in the 21st century. 

Mental health encompasses a whole host of illnesses such as depression, stress, and eating disorders to name but a few. In 2015, 15.3% of the total employed population, 4.9 million people, were suffering from a mental health problem.

Shockingly, 1 in 10 people will be affected by depression during their lifetime, and 1 in 4 people in the UK will suffer from a mental health illness in the next 12 months.  In fact, more people are affected by mental illness every year than cancer or heart disease. The likelihood is that someone in the vicinity of your desk is affected by a mental health problem right now.

Employees and the workplace

Recently, the Mental Health Foundation and employee benefit specialist, Unum, produced the Added Value Report which surveyed employees to assess mental health as a workplace asset. Mind believes that 21% of employees admitted to calling in sick to avoid work, 14% had resigned, and 42% had considered resigning because of workplace stress.

Discrimination and self-stigma prevent people from disclosing their illness to their employer. Nearly half of people who have been diagnosed with a mental health problem in the last five years have taken mental-health related sickness absence but, worryingly, 45% of people have taken time off and given their employer another reason for their absence. Many employees feel uncomfortable even disclosing anything about their mental health to their employer, let alone having an open and frank conversation.

Economic significance

The recent Mental Health Taskforce Strategy suggests that £34 billion is annually spent on mental health, but that the total economic and social cost annually in England alone is £105 billion.

Worryingly for employers, 70 million work days are lost in the UK each year costing businesses approximately £2.4 billion per year.

The biggest concern for employers is, of course, the welfare of their employees. What is increasingly clear though is that mental health is having severe cost consequences due to rising absenteeism, staff turnover, and lost productivity to name but a few factors. So what can be and is being done to reduce these?

Breaking the stigma: what can businesses do to aid the mental health fight?

Despite all of the above, work is seen as a key factor in supporting and protecting mental health: 86% of Added Value respondents believe being at work is important to their mental health. Notwithstanding this, the report found that there is a lack of mental health support in the workplace as many employers lack the systems to recognise and address mental health issues.

Some initiatives being taken by companies include: counselling and informal buddy systems; email policies for limited after work-hours use; anti-bullying policies; stress awareness programmes; and work-life balance support. Indeed, Mind has suggested work-life balance and reclaiming lunch breaks can be valuable to an employee's mental health. Flexible working, adopted by many companies, is an effective way to promote a healthy work-life balance by allowing employees to work around commitments such as childcare. Moreover, many companies have introduced social activities such as book clubs, yoga sessions or other sports teams to promote interaction and active involvement amongst all levels of employees.

Regardless of the initiatives already being taken in the corporate business sphere, much more can still be done. The Added Value Report offers further insight into things employers can do to break the stigma and open the door on mental health issues:

1. Mental health and wellbeing as core assets

Having employees at all levels of the business hierarchy working towards a well-focused, open and honest programme which values mental health and wellbeing can open the conversation, aiding long-term productivity and profitability. Designated support staff within the business and occupational health contacts should be a core part of the mental health and wellbeing programme.

2. Compassionate and effective management relationships which value the lived  experience

The fundamental role that managers play in creating and supporting mentally healthy teams cannot be underestimated. Employers should ensure managers receive training on how to support and protect the mental health of their workforce and have in-depth knowledge of the services their employer offers. It is also paramount that the courage taken by employees to disclose a mental illness is valued and respected by the employer.

 3. Tackle discrimination

Discrimination on the grounds of mental health needs to be as unacceptable as discrimination on the grounds of gender, race, religion etc. Leadership on this should come from the top and all employees should be encouraged to disclose any discrimination they encounter, either directed towards themselves or their colleagues.

E-sports, or electronic sports, is an umbrella term for organised competitive computer gaming either as an individual or as part of a team. Players can participate in tournaments, where they are often paid a salary by a sponsored team, and have the opportunity to compete for cash prizes.

Video game competitions made an inauspicious debut in the early 1970s. The first 'intergalactic spacewar olympics' were held at Stanford University and the winner was awarded a year's subscription to Rolling Stone magazine. Things have come a long way since then; there are now large scale tournaments held every year that revolve around a particular game (for example the League of Legends World Championships, or the International Dota 2 Championships), as well as multi-game tournaments like the Battle.net World Championship Series or the World Cyber Arena.

It's not just the type of tournament that has developed – the money involved in e-sports has swelled to eye-watering sums. In 2016, the e-sports industry generated $493 million in revenue, with a global audience of about 320 million people. The prize money awarded to winning teams frequently tops $10 million, far outweighing many other sporting tournament payouts, including the Super Bowl, the Masters and the Tour de France. Revenue is expected to rise to $696 million in 2017, and reach $1.2 billion in 2020.

A quick Twitter search of #esports brings up a host of tweets regarding corporate sponsorship, broadcast media, adverts for tournaments and sales of e-sports team merchandise. No longer the domain of procrastinating students or bedroom-dwelling teenagers, e-sports is going stratospheric and household name companies, including Coca-Cola, Red Bull and American Express are investing hundreds of millions of dollars to jump on the bandwagon.

Sporting success, previously reserved for the physically superior alphas of this world, is now attainable by the everyman. There isn't really a restriction on the type of game that makes a good e-sport - 'cyberathletes' will battle it out for glory in the most popular e-sport games such as League of Legends, Counter-Strike and Dota 2, as well as old favourites like Call of Duty, FIFA, World of Warcraft and Halo – so whether you're more suited to MOBA (multiplayer online battle arena) or FPS (first-person shooter), you can achieve eternal sporting cyber-glory. Just ask the Dota 2 superstar Li 'iceice' Peng, who, as the top-earning e-sportsman of 2016, raked in a tidy $1.9 million in prize money alone.

 Perhaps you should consider putting down the books and picking up your headset and controller…

Ticket touting is the act of buying tickets for events such as concerts, theatre or sports, and reselling them at a much higher price, commonly through resale websites. Ticket touts often use digital purchasing technology to circumvent restrictions on the number of tickets that can be bought in order to "harvest" hundreds of tickets.

These tickets are then sold via the secondary market which is also used by fans who can no longer attend an event. As a result of touting, face value tickets sell out much faster and desperate fans are forced to pay well over the odds – an £85 ticket to last year's Adele concert in the O2 was allegedly selling for £24,840!

The secondary ticket sales industry is worth £1.2 billion in the UK alone. Whilst the secondary ticket market does not just consist of ticket touts, and arguably has many benefits, touts are profiting whilst making certain sporting and recreational events inaccessible to many. So what is actually being done to prevent this practice?

Current preventative measures

Various artists, such as Coldplay, Adele and Ed Sheeran, are becoming more vocal about ticket touts and some have taken action to stop the use of digital purchasing technology, albeit with little success. There are, however, reports of certain managers and artists colluding with secondary ticket outlets to prevent fans from being able to buy tickets at face value.

The theatre production Hamilton introduced a "ticketless" system, requiring a bank card and photographic ID for entry in order to combat touts, however this too has its flaws.

Under the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994 it is illegal to resell football tickets without authorisation from the match organiser; however, there are no specific offences in England and Wales aimed at ticket touting for other recreational events.

Government Proposals

The House of Lords recently proposed amendments to the DEB to include measures preventing tickets being "harvested" by touts. The new DEB would give the Secretary of State the authority to create an offence for breaching the limits on ticket purchases for recreational, sporting or cultural events. The offence could carry an unlimited fine with the aim of negating the benefits of bulk resale for ticket touts as they would risk losing any profit made.

Other early proposals included a prison sentence and allowing the initial ticket issuer to bring court action to remove any advertised tickets which do not include sufficient information. However, these proposals did not make it into the Bill which is now to be considered by the Commons.

A key issue with the amended DEB is that many touts are based overseas and therefore may not be deterred by the creation of the offence in England and Wales.

Moreover, it is difficult to differentiate between ticket touts and sellers who genuinely can no longer attend an event. Currently, ticket sellers must provide the seat number and face value of the ticket under the Consumer Rights Act 2015. Further proposals to strengthen the Act would force sellers to also publish their name and company details. These proposals are an important step towards targeting touts as these details will allow authorities to determine which sellers are selling tickets in bulk.

Fanfair Alliance, an organisation against ticket touting, has stated that the existing legislation aimed at increasing transparency on secondary ticketing websites, such as the Consumer Rights Act 2015 and the Computer Misuse Act 1990, has rarely been enforced by the government or other agencies. In order for the DEB to be effective, it would have to be strictly enforced with cooperation from both resale websites and the government to monitor whether ticket limits have been circumvented using digital purchasing technology.

Until these proposals are put into practice, it remains to be seen whether ticket touts will be stopped. Until then, better start saving for the next concert!

 Projects around the world are already in place in an attempt to tackle the crisis, but it's likely to take years for a new means of production to catch up with the world's chocoholism. Further, many of the suggested "solutions" are near-sacrilege. Bearing in mind the origin of the word "chocolate" (literally, a "food made from cacao seeds"), it seems counterintuitive to substitute the key ingredient with pretenders such as mango. And more importantly, do these fraudster scientists really think we won't notice the difference?

 Clearly a world without chocolate is a nightmarish prospect at any time of the year, but with Easter just around the corner the idea seems even more frightening. This is a prospect worse than Christmas without turkey, NYE without champagne, or birthdays without cake because everybody eats chocolate: vegetarians, children, priests, the Queen… even the mysterious self-punishing hipsters who avoid gluten for no apparent reason. In fact, only 5% of Brits do not touch the stuff.

 The cocoa shortage is not just a concern for consumers. In the UK, we will spend an average of £14 per person on chocolate over this coming weekend. Retailers need to adapt to maintain this level of profit amidst the cocoa shortage and, unsurprisingly, it seems that their approach so far has been to the detriment of their customers. Sadly, we are now all-too-familiar with stories of "shrinkflation": smaller eggs, bigger prices, and just plain weird changes to our favourite chocolate bars (who can forget the gross injury to our beloved Toblerone?). At the other end of the spectrum, the rise in luxury Easter confectionery suggests that higher-end retailers may instead disguise the increased production outlays within a price which is already many times the cost of your average Dairy Milk egg.

 So what to do? Accept that Creme Eggs will be the size of Mini Eggs by 2020? Cough up £25 for a chocolate teapot? Wait around for "chocolate" derived from mango?

 An alternative - and brave - approach is to drop the chocolate altogether. It seems that some retailers are anticipating this from consumers, as non-chocolate Easter options are popping up with increasing frequency (and bizarreness – cue the cheese egg). Retailers in other sectors are also expecting a change in spending this Easter, with bars and restaurants gearing up for the public to forget about pricey consumables, and instead make the most of the sunny forecast and their remaining March pay-packet.

 A world without chocolate sounds like a child's nightmare, but it could become our reality if the cocoa crisis does not pick up. With one in six Brits eating chocolate every single day, there would be genuine trauma should the unspeakable happen. Perhaps this weekend, complete with its cheesy offerings and lack of April showers, is our opportunity to realise that Easter, and life, need not revolve around chocolate. After all, as much as it is a modern tradition, I'm pretty sure it wasn't Kit Kats that Jesus was breaking with His disciples.

Advent of Huabei

At the heart of the Chinese culture is a ritual to save rather than spend. This has indirectly dictated consumer spending in China for centuries. Whilst consumer credit has traditionally been an unfamiliar or unpopular concept to many in China, this is beginning to change with the advent of Huabei (loosely translated as ‘Just-Spend’) which is a form of virtual online credit granted based on your online credit profile. When it comes to virtual online consumer credit, Alibaba has led the way in the Chinese market. And, given the enormous potential in the consumer spending market in China, this is a clever move.

Calculating your online credit rating

However, unorthodox methods are being used to generate these online credit profiles.

Amongst other things, buyers’ purchase histories on Taobao (China's largest online retail platform and which is owned by Alibaba) are being analysed and then used to create a credit score by Alibaba's in-house credit-rating system, Sesame Credit. According to a director of Sesame Credit, a person who frequently buys nappies will be deemed more worthy of credit than someone playing video games for ten hours a day. Another example comes from China Rapid Finance which calculates an individual’s credit score based on their WeChat contacts and payment patterns.

In light of this, there is a question to be asked: do these criteria allow for an adequate and fair assessment of a person’s creditworthiness or, more importantly, trustworthiness?

A step too far?

While the Chinese tech giants, and even the regulatory bodies, seem comfortable about using such algorithms, arguably data such as WeChat contacts and Taobao purchase histories only represent a small cross-section of a person’s creditworthiness, if anything at all. Linking a person's creditworthiness with his or her trustworthiness might also appear a concept too forward-thinking.

Background

The North Sea is estimated to have originally contained about 63bn barrels of recoverable oil. Two thirds of this has been extracted since the first major wells were sunk in the 1960s.

The four rigs (Alpha, Bravo, Charlie and Delta) located in the Brent field have produced around 2bn barrels of oil and 5.7tn cubic feet of gas since coming onstream in the mid-1970s. At its peak output in 1982 the field was producing half a million barrels of oil each day.

Now though, a combination of factors is pushing producers out of the North Sea. Delta ceased production in 2011, and the installation is due to be removed and scrapped later this year.

Why is the North Sea struggling to remain a competitive source of oil?

One obvious answer is a lack of supply; the majority of the accessible oil has already been recovered. It is estimated that roughly 20bn barrels of oil are still contained in the region, but drilling for the remainder is likely to be disproportionately difficult and costly (though there may be some reason for optimism). This dilemma echoes a worldwide trend in declining oilfield exploration. Companies can diversify and extend the life of their current operations – Shell, for instance, switched Brent from oil to a predominantly gas field in the 1990s – but these kinds of solution are expensive and no longer sustainable due to insufficient oil.

Another problem for North Sea producers is the slowing of demand. Consumers and businesses are becoming more environmentally conscious, increasingly demanding energy from renewable resources. The UK government is looking to greener technology in order to meet its commitments under international treaties, such as the Paris Agreement. Nuclear power is also on the increase – Hinkley Point C for example, though controversially backed by foreign governments, is due to come online in the mid-2020s.

All this is compounded by volatile oil prices. In mid-2014, oil sold for $115 per barrel. It is now trading at less than half that. There are many intersecting causes, but in part this has been due to OPEC. The cartel has intentionally been oversupplying oil to push prices down, in order to force out higher-cost competitors, in particular the resurgent US shale producers. Prices have dropped to such an extent that OPEC agreed to cut output at the end of 2016 with the aim of driving up prices once more.

These market forces are enough to squeeze anyone's profit margin, but for North Sea producers the impact is maximised. They already grapple with stringent safety rules, sky-high workforce bills and brutal geographic conditions, all of which give rise to the most expensive operating costs in the world. In the UK it costs $30 to $40 to recover a barrel of oil. In Saudi Arabia, recovering the same quantity sets you back a mere $5.

The North Sea is therefore an increasingly impractical and unprofitable source of oil. This pushes producers to withdraw from the region – but they must properly decommission their installations first.

The future of North Sea oil and gas – the decommissioning boom

Rigs have already been decommissioned in the North Sea, but this trend is set to accelerate rapidly. Oil and Gas UK, the industry body, estimates that across the next 10 years 100 platforms will be removed at a cost of some £17.6bn.

This figure encompasses the costs of not only removing topsides (the above-water structures), but of plugging 1,800 wells and extracting 7,500 km of pipeline. The fates of the supporting substructures are not known, but if oil companies are forced to remove these too the £17.6bn figure will quickly be forgotten due to the difficulty of the task. The concrete substructure of Brent Delta, for example, weighs about 350,000 tonnes - approximately the weight of the Empire State Building. Unsurprisingly, Shell wants to leave it on the seabed.

The profit opportunities for Able UK (the company awarded the decommissioning contract for the Brent platforms), and other decommissioning bodies are obvious. Due to the anti-pollution OSPAR obligations, oil companies have no choice but to utilise decommissioning services. Looking long-term, all 330 North Sea oilfields, consisting of 475 platforms and 5,000 wells, will ultimately be decommissioned. The costs, and potential profits, are going to be colossal over the coming decades.

Areas of Scotland and the North-East of England are heavily reliant on the oil exploration industry. A lack of evolution may result in financial decline. Now is the time for the UK to invest in technology and skills in order to diversify into the decommissioning sector, and in so doing become a global centre for highly lucrative decommissioning work.

There have been a number of initiatives in recent years targeted at promoting the effectiveness of executive pay as a corporate governance measure. These include the increasing use of long-term pay incentives, more robust shareholder oversight, and additional disclosure obligations designed to improve transparency. The latest set of reforms came into effect in 2013, giving shareholders of quoted companies a binding vote on pay policies at least once every three years and an annual advisory vote on actual pay awards made to directors under the approved policies.

However, the escalation in remuneration that has occurred over the same period has led many to question whether the reforms are working. The average total pay of FTSE 100 CEOs rose from c.£1m in 1998 to c.£4.3m in 2015, far outstripping growth in the FTSE 100 share index and the increase in average remuneration for other employees over the same period. In 1998, the ratio of average FTSE 100 CEO pay to average full-time employee pay was 47:1. This had increased to 132:1 by 2010 and stood at 128:1 in 2015.

Proposals for reform

Although most agree that the increasing size and design of current remuneration packages is a cause for concern, there is a lack of consensus on what any reform should look like and what it should seek to achieve. In November 2016, the Government published a Green Paper on Corporate Governance Reform which contained its latest proposals to strengthen big business whilst ensuring that it continues to command public confidence and respect. Executive pay is one of the Green Paper's three focus areas and the Government invited views on five key areas: (1) shareholder voting; (2) shareholder engagement on pay; (3) the role of remuneration committees; (4) pay disclosure; and (5) long-term pay incentives. The time for submitting responses to the Green Paper ended on 17 February 2017 and the Government is now in the process of analysing public feedback. Whether the proposals are capable of having any meaningful impact on this area has been a matter of much debate.

Take shareholder influence, for example. Although the proper regulation of executive pay is often perceived to be the responsibility of the company's owners, the evidence suggests that shareholders are only willing to exercise their powers of control in rare and extreme cases. Since the introduction of the 2013 reforms, remuneration reports and policies have been voted down in only a few instances and usually only when pay was drastically out of line with wider company performance. Many shareholders are declining to make use of their votes at all, with an average percentage turnout of 71% for FTSE 100 companies and of 62% for FTSE small cap companies. Any further voting rights on pay will be subject to the same problems of shareholder apathy and a general lack of willingness to influence the remuneration process.

A further question is whether companies ought to be required to publish executive-employee pay ratios comparing CEO pay to that in the wider workforce. Some consider that this would allow stakeholders to draw comparisons between executive pay across different companies and to judge how pay ratios have changed over time. However, others believe that pay ratios have the potential to create results which can be misunderstood by the public and others when taken out of context. For example, they can penalise companies that offer significant non-monetary benefits, and encourage outsourcing of lower paid work so as to exclude it from the equation. Some also cite the so-called 'Goldman-Waitrose' effect, whereby Goldman Sachs would be portrayed as a more equitable company than Waitrose because its employees are on average more highly paid.

Going forwards

The ultimate aim for businesses is to attract and retain top talent whilst ensuring that those individuals are motivated to achieve sustainable, long-term value creation for the company. Where there is a perception that ever more generous remuneration packages are necessary in order to achieve those objectives, we are unlikely to see any reversal in current pay trends, with or without reform.

All figures are extracted from "Corporate Governance Reform: Green Paper", Department for Business, Energy & Industrial Strategy, November 2016.

As amusing or outrageous as these stories are, there may be one cause for concern: the stock market. It is estimated that nearly three quarters of trades on the stock market are conducted by computer algorithms. These codes are at least in part, and arguably extensively, reliant on news media outlets and the ebb and flow of real time news stories.

In recent months a dual-faceted concern has been identified: on the one hand the toxic mix of false news stories may be driving down share prices; and on the other, news stories in themselves are catalysing a chain reaction in world markets.

The pound will probably not win an Oscar this year for its performance, but on Friday 7 October 2016 its descent was unexpected. The pound suddenly started diving between 07:07 and 07:09 from $1.26 to $1.1819 before rallying to $1.24 at 07:39. The official cause is yet to be released but in the immediate aftermath the suspected culprit was a toxic mix of rogue algorithms and the release of an FT article reporting President Hollande's call for tough Brexit negotiations.

The mathematical formulae that provide the bedrock of trading algorithms are designed to follow and monitor such fluctuations. As soon as one decides to sell it sets off a whole series of other algorithms and commands to sell, or buy. This chasing sequence thus exacerbates market fluctuations.

On 22 November 2016 it was Vinci's turn to suffer at the hands of the market, but this time the news story itself was at fault. A hoax press release alleging that an accounting error had been discovered and that Vinci's Chief Financial Officer had been fired was picked up by major news outlets including Bloomberg, prompting an almost immediate 18% plunge in share price. Even when the story had been identified as false its share price was down 3.8% at the close of the day, proving that confidence is far slower to recover than algorithms are to chase stock down. All this, even when there was no truth in the story.

According to the most recent news reports (if you now dare believe them), the next trading algorithm is being designed to follow Donald Trump's tweets. His early morning twitter tirade over the price of Lockheed Martin's F-35 jets led to an initial fall of $4 billion in Lockheed's market value. It managed to recover relatively quickly but such spikes will tempt the more aggressive investor to chase the markets. Whilst very useful for the investors, such instability is not good for the companies involved, as it reduces their market value and damages their public perception.

No doubt as the algorithms are developed some of these 'small' events will be resolved, and the way in which they chase the buy and sell decisions of other algorithms will become more sophisticated. But how can a market which is so sensitive to news adapt to an environment where truth is an intangible and falsehoods are like wolves in sheep's clothing? And when a company's value plunges and doesn't recover who will the litigators look to?

The majority of trainee responses predicted that the High Court judgment would be upheld by the Supreme Court - and they were correct! As a consequence, the trainees suspect that Article 50 will be triggered in the first half of 2017. Interestingly, no trainee response foresaw another UK general election.

As for Nigel Farage's next move… if trainee predictions are accurate then this year will see him take the lead in his own movie (Bad Boys of Brexit: The Movie), host a reality TV programme (Keeping Up With Farage), reprise his role as Leader of UKIP and become the UK Ambassador to the US.

US Politics:

If 2016 has taught us anything, it's the unpredictability of Donald J. Trump; never known to shy away from a challenge, the trainees have divined Trump’s likely successes and failures in 2017. Those who imagine success see it on the domestic front, with potential bolstering of US business due to an emphasis on home-grown economy. Some fear this will be achieved at the expense of immigration, or perhaps by continuing to threaten multinational companies via Twitter – behaviour which signals his biggest expected failing: public provocation against any perceived criticism. As entertaining as his social media policy may be, the trainees are concerned that it may have serious repercussions on an international level. For example, it may put the US at risk of alienation or, in the most extreme prognostication, global conflict.

Legal and Business:

We answered almost unanimously when it came to our expectations of the FTSE index over 2017. In light of the uncertainty surrounding European and American politics, the trainees forecast economic prospects with varying degrees of pessimism: "going nowhere", "…down, down, down", and "sickening". The (few) optimists amongst us suggest that there is a hope of growth, provided that Trump behaves in the White House.

Our prognosis of the legal landscape is less consistent. Everyone is agreed that the Article 50 decision, the moment of Brexit itself, and increased confidence in technology will have significant ramifications. However, whilst some of us see these changes as threats to our profession, others perceive them as opportunities.

Tech:

Three key strands emerged in trainees' predictions for the next big thing in tech in 2017: artificial intelligence (AI); digital assistants; and cyber-security.

The majority of respondents predict that developments in the world of AI and machine learning would feature prominently in 2017. Some predict increased integration of digital assistants into our lives whilst others speculate that this year mobile phones will be developed which will be able to predict how you'd use an app or respond to a text by using repetitive behavioural analysis.

Another big theme was cyber-security. This is particularly topical at a time when high-profile data breaches are rarely out of the news and as companies are gearing up for the entry into force of the General Data Protection Regulation in May 2018 which will bring significantly greater economic sanctions for companies which don't have sufficient cyber-security mechanisms in place. Watch this space!

Entertainment:

To those with a sweet tooth beware - it’s not looking to be a tasty start to 2017, with trainees predicting the next trendy things to eat as "veg ice-cream", "cockroach milk" (yes, that is a real thing!) or "some sort of new seed". Whilst it seems we're all relentlessly sticking to our New Year resolutions for now, for those who aren’t interested in a superfood lifestyle (or those that topple into that category after January is over), you will be happy to hear that the majority of trainees have predicted a new baking show will be replacing GBBO on the BBC at prime time, with many hoping the cast will feature some familiar GBBO faces. Failing that, trainees are optimistic that the 'Beeb' will be keen to introduce a feel-good programme - "perhaps involving cute animals (a la Planet Earth) or family fun (a la Michael McIntyre's Big Show)".

Sport:

In the sporting world we've played it safe, with most trainees predicting that Chelsea will continue their title campaign all the way to Premier League victory. One hopeful trainee is keen to see Middlesbrough pull off a Leicester-style fairy tale (although the fact that they are currently trailing the title leaders by more than 30 points mean this may have to wait until next season). Other responses included Liverpool, City and Manchester United. Despite currently sitting second in the table, Tottenham didn't receive any backing for the top spot, suggesting that trainees aren't optimistic that Spurs' history of unlucky season finishes is going to change this year.

By the RPC Trainees

For some, taxes on unhealthy products are proof of the "nanny state" intruding on people's right to choose. For others, they fairly reallocate some of the enormous healthcare costs borne by the community. Whether the sugar tax will improve our health and benefit the economy is up for debate.

Bad for the bottom line?

The sugar tax has received a hostile response from the soft drinks industry. A coalition of UK businesses recently launched a "Face the Facts, Can the Tax" campaign, claiming that the proposed levy threatens 4,000 jobs and would corrode the already fragile consumer goods market. The producer of Irn-Bru has blamed the campaign against sugar for falling revenues, calling the tax a "punitive and unnecessary distortion to competition".

Conversely, Britvic has seen a 10% rise in revenues following an increased focus on sugar free options. Companies taking this approach have received widespread praise, highlighting the potential reputational benefits of embracing the low-sugar message.

The potential benefits for the wider economy are huge. The sugar tax is expected to raise £520m in its first year, much of which will fund health-related initiatives in schools. On a broader scale, it is hoped that the levy will combat obesity, which is estimated to cost the UK economy a whopping £46bn per year.

Good for the waistline?

Although sugar taxes have been introduced in a handful of countries, their effect on overall consumption is unclear. A consumer levy in Mexico reduced sales of soft drinks by 12% within 12 months; however they have begun to climb after this initial drop, suggesting any long term effects may be minimal.

According to research from the Institute for Economic Affairs (IEA), the demand for sugary products is inelastic, meaning that increases in price do not lead to a proportionate decrease in consumption. The IEA claims that consumers simply get their sugar fix from cheaper products, so there is no overall impact on their health.

Supporters are more optimistic, arguing that the tax will change behaviour and could provide a template for other food and drink sectors. The UK tax is unique in that it targets producers rather than consumers, providing a direct incentive for companies to reformulate their products. Tesco has already redeveloped its entire range of own-label soft drinks to avoid the levy, while leading brands such as Lucozade and Sprite are slashing sugar content and releasing new zero and low-calorie alternatives.

In simple terms, age verification is an age or date of birth attribute check to determine eligibility to access goods and services. A common example would be providing ID when purchasing alcohol. However, in the digital sphere this gives rise to complications.

Is it possible?

As it stands, the draft DEB sets out that the standard website 'tick box' or 'enter your date of birth' approaches are not sufficient. Therefore, a mechanism is required to assure the asserted date of birth provided. Proponents of age verification have put forward third party validation as the answer to this, for example the provision of credit card details.

On the face of it, an individual who has a credit card has already provided proof to a bank that they are over 18. There are, however, significant drawbacks.

Firstly, individuals may fear that websites that provide adult content are not in a position to store their data securely. They may find it difficult to trust a website that is not designed to process this type of information. This issue is brought acutely into focus by the fact that, under the DEB, an age verification regulator will be introduced with no duty to protect against cyber security risks that may emerge from these systems.

In particular, commentators have noted how this influx of data could cause issues for high profile users. Alec Muffett, board member of the digital rights organisation Open Rights Group, recently highlighted that “A high price would be paid by tabloid newspapers for a list enumerating the porn preferences of the Manchester United first eleven.”

Secondly, there is nothing to stop an under-age individual asserting another person's evidence, for example a parent's credit card. Consequently, a means of confirming the link between the individual and the evidence asserted is required. A host of options have been considered:

• a smartphone app which compares a selfie with the photo ID relied upon;
• technology such as Verifu, which accesses Facebook to confirm identity; and
• biometric identifiers, such as a retina scan.

Without much consideration, the above suggestions raise a number of issues: administrative burden, providing a website with access to vulnerable personal data and the fact that the technology is not widely available.

At the moment, the government's discussions focus on the distribution of porn but it is unclear where the line will be drawn. Taking the above smartphone app as an example, could you imagine having to upload a selfie every time you watch an over 18 rated music video?

An extra hurdle to jump

Beyond the practical hurdles of age verification, there are economic considerations to balance. It is arguable that adult content providers have business models which are based upon the customers' ability to protect their anonymity. If users are unwilling to provide the details required to verify their age, this could have a negative impact on the level of revenue these businesses produce. The wider impact of this is highlighted by the fact that it has been estimated that over $3,000 is spent every second across the world on adult content (and that was in 2010!).

Further, the DEB will likely not apply to overseas providers. This appears to have two consequences:

• Offshore-based providers will become more attractive; and
• UK-based providers will incur substantial costs in implementing age verification.The cumulative effect is that UK-based providers could be inhibited when compared to their offshore competitors and, eventually, it may push them offshore.

The elephant in the room

Ultimately, the government's aim in putting forward the DEB is an admirable one – protecting children. However, solving a social problem through technological means is a difficult prospect. The elephant in the room is that, in reality, technically savvy young people will inevitably find ways around age verification systems. Further consideration should be given to investing in education in this area, empowering parents to be able to make their own decision on how to protect their children and to shifting public attitudes away from the age old problem of blaming "the internet". 

UK Politics:

David Cameron was right in his New Year message when he said Great Britain "will make some of [its] most significant strides yet" in 2016. 2016 has seen the United Kingdom vote to end its 43 year membership of the EU (originally the EEC) and appoint Theresa May, its first female Prime Minister since Thatcher in 1979. The decision to leave the EU on 24 June 2016 will change all aspects of the United Kingdom; from laws and politics to education and trade. The true impact of the vote, as discussed by trainees in our Brexit series, will only be determined once Article 50 is invoked.

Sport:

2016 was also an extraordinary year for sport. Having started the season on the brink of relegation, Leicester City shocked the world with their Premier League victory. This football fairytale has since seen Leicester join the UEFA Champions League, gain millions of fans globally (in Thailand), and seen the value of their squad treble or even quadruple. The losers in this tale are undoubtedly the bookies. Their 5000/1 reckoning that a Leicester triumph was less likely than an Elvis resurrection saw them lose an estimated £25m. No doubt the Foxes will always be on their mind.

Other sporting highlights include Team GB's 214 medals in the Rio games and Murray's second Wimbledon win (and third BBC Sports Personality of the Year win). For the trainees' take on these events, check out Charlotte's post on the tennis pay gap and Chris' analysis of the true cost of the Games.

Space:

This year has been a little crazy for most of us on the planet, but at least life in space has been pretty peachy. British-born Tim Peake completed his mission on the ISS in June and during his time aboard lifted our spirits with his New Year's message, completed the London Marathon space-style and sent us some stunning shots of twinkling earth (it looks like a peaceful place from 400km away). Oh, and after almost 5 years of travel, NASA space probe Juno successfully reached Jupiter's orbit in July and is finding out all sorts of cool stuff about the largest planet in our solar system. All in all 2016 was pretty great... off of Earth at least.

Entertainment:

2016 has also been a momentous year in the world of entertainment. There's been success for the tried and tested, with Leonardo Di Caprio finally scooping an Oscar for his gripping performance in The Revenant - we hope Leo's done some mantlepiece rearranging to give it pride of place! There have also been some new arrivals. The rise of the reality star has continued with the likes of Honey G, 'Strictly Balls' and Scarlett Moffat all making their way onto our screens this year. Finally, we've sadly had to say goodbye to a Great British Institution. RIP Bake Off as we know it. In 2017 all eyes will be on Paul Hollywood, to see if he really can have his iced bun and eat it.

IT/Tech:

We've witnessed another stonking year for the tech industry. The launch of Amazon Echo (Alexa) and Google Home demonstrates the take-off of voice assistants, whilst Apple’s announcement that it is working on an automated car shows that there is no let-up in the fast-developing market for automated vehicles. 2016 also saw a saturation of wearable fitness devices in the marketplace and the announcement that both Google and Facebook are opening their European HQs in London in 2017. However, undoubtedly the biggest tech hype of the year was the launch of Pokémon Go in July. Having been downloaded over 500 million times, its success suggests that augmented reality apps are the next big thing. The Trainees Take on Business Blog considered a number of other issues: from the benefits of AI for the legal industry to the risks of smart technology in the workplace.

The US Election:

How to sum up the political circus that was the 2016 US Presidential Election in a short paragraph? Bernie Sanders’ “revolution” is quashed; Hillary becomes the first female major-party nominee; The Donald trumps Jeb(!) and “Lyin’ Ted”; Russia hacks the Democratic Party emails; WikiLeaks leaks them; Trump insults [x]; Emails; build a wall!; fake news; even stranger real news; Trump tweets; sexual assault confessed on tape; FBI’s false alarm on emails; polls wrong again; Trump wins Electoral College; Clinton wins popular vote by 2m; President Trump. The Trainees Take on Business Blog's coverage of the US Election can be found here.

For the RPC trainees' predictions for 2017, check out Trainees Take on Business blog coming in the New Year!

By Sarah Newby, Sami Thompson, Chloe Johnston, Victoria Noto, Sophie Tuson and Anna Greco

1. It is illegal to place a stamp upside down on a letter

Something to consider when posting your Christmas cards this year. The Treason Felony Act 1848 outlaws any offence with the intention of deposing the monarch. However, it seems unlikely that placing a stamp upside down would amount to this. According to a spokeswoman for Royal Mail, there is no sanction for sticking a stamp upside down.

Verdict: Myth

2. It is an offence to kill or take any game on Christmas Day

If you usually eat game for your Christmas lunch or dinner, you better make sure that you get it before Christmas Day. S.3 of the Game Act 1831 states that is an offence to: "Kill or take any game, or use any dog, gun, net or other engine or instrument for the purpose of killing or taking any game, on a Sunday or Christmas Day."

Verdict: Law

3. It is illegal to eat mince pies on Christmas Day

It may sound ludicrous but, in fact, there was one Christmas in which eating mince pies was illegal. It was the Christmas of 1644, which fell on a legally-mandated day of fasting. However, mince pies were never strictly themselves banned. Although, they were strongly disapproved of as a symbol of the immoral excesses of the festive season.

Verdict: Myth

4. It is an offence to wilfully and wantonly disturb any inhabitant by pulling or ringing any door bell

A warning to all carol singers, who may be incessantly ringing doorbells this year. S.28 of The Town Police Clauses Act 1847, applied to every “person who wilfully and wantonly disturbs any inhabitant, by pulling or ringing any door bell, or knocking at any door," and made it an offence, punishable by fine. S.28 was repealed by the Deregulation Act 2015.

Verdict: Repealed Law

5. It is illegal to sell Christmas Crackers to persons younger than 12 years

The Pyrotechnic Articles (Safety) Regulations 2015, s.31 states that an "economic operator must not make a pyrotechnic article available on the market…to a person younger than [12 years]", in relation to Christmas Crackers. Prior to these Regulations, the age restriction had been 16 but it was reduced to 12 as part of the Government's move in 2013 to abolish unnecessary laws.

Verdict: Law

6. Employers must give their employees a Christmas bonus

Christmas can be a costly affair and so a Christmas bonus could come as a very welcome treat. Whilst it is not the case in England, some countries have made it law that employers give their workers a bonus the size of one month's salary. In some countries, it is not technically a bonus but is known as the Thirteenth salary and is customarily included in work contracts. The lucky countries include Italy, France, Chile, Mexico and Brazil.

Verdict: Law in some countries but (unfortunately!) not in England.

7. It is illegal to handle fish in suspicious circumstances

If you like to start your Christmas meal with a fish course, beware of s.32 Salmon Act 1986, which makes it an offence to handle fish in suspicious circumstances. The Act used to just apply only to salmon, but it was amended to include other fish by the Marine and Coastal Access Act 2009.

Verdict: Law

8. It is illegal to delay or interfere with packages

Christmas cards and packages are aplenty at this time of year. However, it is illegal under the Postal Services Act 2000 to intentionally delay or open a parcel that is not intended for you. Interfering with someone else's parcel could also constitute the tort of conversion or trespass to goods.

Verdict: Law

9. It is illegal to be drunk on licensed premises

Something to bear in mind during the Christmas party season. S.12 of the Licensing Act 1872, states that “every person found drunk…on any licensed premises, shall be liable to a penalty.” It is also an offence under the Metropolitan Police Act 1839 for a landlord to permit drunkenness or disorderly conduct on the premises. Furthermore, under the Licensing Act 2003, it is an offence to sell alcohol to a person who is drunk or to obtain alcohol for consumption by a person who is drunk.

Verdict: Law

10. Gifts to and from clients, a bribe?

Verdict: Law

11. Anti-competitive behaviour

Verdict: Law

12. It is illegal to jump the queue in a Tube ticket hall

When you're making your Christmas commute and trying to fight your way through the crowds at stations, remember that there is in fact, a law about queuing. The TFL ByeLaws brought into force under s.26 of the Greater London Authority Act 1999 state: "Any person directed by a notice to queue or asked to queue by an authorised person shall join the rear of the queue and obey the reasonable instructions of any authorised person regulating the queue."

Verdict: Law

Why do brands spend so much?

The evidence suggests that Christmas adverts are well worth their price. In the short term, they transform passive viewers into shoppers thereby maximising seasonal sales. In the long term, they strengthen a brand’s reputation by communicating the character and values of the brand and securing it in the mind’s eye of the public.

Sales sales sales

Online sales have increased by 8.9% from March 2015 to March 2016 and overall consumer spending has increased this year. With such a rich retail environment, it's no wonder that brands are intent on targeting shoppers at Christmas, when their appetite for consumerism grows as quickly as their bellies. Sales figures for John Lewis show that 20% of their annual sales and 40% of their profits are made during the Christmas period alone, highlighting the effectiveness and potential reward of consumer advertising which is on-point at this time of year.

Retailers are also increasingly inclined to pour more money into social media as Christmas approaches because they understand the strength of an effective social media campaign in increasing awareness about their products. Indeed, a 2014 survey suggested that 26% of consumers report social media as being one of the main ways in which they become aware of products and brands, and 52% said they use social media to connect with brands.

Reputation

But the campaigns are not merely tools to encourage festive sales. They have an increasingly significant role in building the brands themselves. A key feature of the big brands' festive adverts is storytelling. They are not directly selling a product to consumers, but are instead selling the character of the brand. This has a longer term goal than just peaking sales throughout the Christmas period. These adverts are effectively setting the brand up for the coming year.

The uncertainty of Brexit

How has Brexit affected retailers’ advertising spend this Christmas?

The prospect of leaving the EU has caused uncertainty for many retailers. ITV has announced an expected drop of 7% in its advertising revenue in the final three months of 2016. This suggests that many companies that usually spend liberally to ensure their products are advertised in prime slots over Christmas are holding back this year.

However, this trend may not necessarily be indicative of a general downturn in advertising spending. It could be merely a reflection of the general shift away from the traditional advertising areas of TV and print media towards digital media, such as smartphone advertising and YouTube.

In fact, overall ad spend this Christmas has seen a significant increase of £300m in comparison to last year and is the most spent in any festive season. It's possible that in the current turbulent climate there's a stronger case than ever for investment in Christmas advertising due to its ability to secure sales far into the New Year. Thankfully then, it seems that “Brexit hasn’t cancelled Christmas”. Amidst much political uncertainty, perhaps the one thing we can bank on is festive advertising continuing to be big business for retailers.

Smart offices use the Internet of Things (IoT), a system of smart devices communicating with each other over Wi-Fi, to revolutionise the modern workspace. The result? More intelligent and interconnected offices than ever before. And with leading tech researcher Gartner estimating that there'll be 21bn "connected things" by 2020, the smart office could be set to take over.

But whilst smart offices might offer real benefits to businesses and the employees who occupy them, what are the risks associated with this level of interconnectivity in the workplace? And is it even smart to have an office at all considering the increasing trend for remote working?

Intelligent workplaces

On one level, smart offices are about freedom and autonomy - giving employees flexibility in how they use their workspace whilst, at the same time, bringing some of the comforts and perks of working remotely back into the office environment.

Localised climate control is just one of those perks. Squabbling over the "optimum" office temperature may be a thing of the past. Italian Architect, Carlo Ratti, has designed an office in Turin which enables workers to set their desired temperature using a smartphone app. Sensors in the ceiling are then activated by human presence and send instructions to heating, lighting and cooling systems creating personalised 'thermal bubbles' that follow individuals around the office.

With the increasing trend for "hot-desking", smart technology enables workers to reserve desks, book meeting rooms and open lockers using an app. A "touch in and out" system, similar to using a contactless credit card, can help hot-deskers who feel alienated by the loss of a permanent desk reclaim ownership of their working space.

Add to this: coffee machines that know when they're running low on milk and automatically order more; and video conferencing robots (imagine a segway with an iPad on top) which enable remote workers to have a more physical presence in the office ... and it's all starting to look pretty cool.

But perhaps the most convincing argument for IoT in the workplace is the huge potential for energy saving - experts predict this could be around 20 - 50%. This is significant considering that commercial buildings currently account for 40% of the world's electricity consumption. The Edge has an LED lighting system integrated with 30,000 sensors which enables it to continuously measure human occupancy and movement and to automatically adjust heating and lighting accordingly - turning meeting rooms to "standby" when they aren't being used.

Does this all come at a price?

Architects have warned that the use of smart technology represents a radical and "potentially sinister" shift in architectural practice with architects becoming increasingly focused on the benefits of intelligent workspaces whilst overlooking the dangers.

Whilst much of the data collected by smart devices is done so anonymously, there remains a concern about how this data could ultimately be used. Earlier this year, the Daily Telegraph's attempt to install desk sensors (called OccupEye) to measure occupancy and save energy, was aborted after just one day after the paper was criticised for operating a system of surveillance on its own employees.

In the context of unprecedented levels of cyber-crime, there also exists a risk that the increasingly sensitive data collected by smart devices could fall into the wrong hands. The risk of a data breach will be even more acutely felt by businesses when the General Data Protection Regulation comes into force in May 2018 bringing with it tougher new sanctions of up to €20m or 4% of worldwide turnover. Arguably for some businesses this risk, and the cost of implementing the required security measures to prevent a data breach, may prove too high.

The future of the smart office

What's clear is that the use of smart technology in the workplace needs to be palatable for employees with the risks being measured against any perceived gains. To do just this, the firm behind The Edge is consulting employees at an early stage; with a new London HQ set to be launched, they are using virtual reality headsets to "show" prospective office users what their workspace might look like and garner feedback.

So, how rosy is the future looking for the smart office? Whilst robots and clever coffee machines might sound fun, what seems likely is that businesses that do decide to invest in smart technology in the workplace will do so principally where it will impact efficiency, cost reduction and employee comfort.

Critics of the office have speculated that it has had its heyday and is now a dying breed, but perhaps they are wrong. The office isn't dying, it's evolving and the Internet of Things is making it happen.

Cost and benefit

It has been estimated that Rio 2016 cost $12bn. By way of comparison, London 2012, which was designed to be a low-cost affair after the $42bn extravaganza that was Beijing 2008, cost $15bn in total. Whilst this might suggest that Rio 2016 was relatively inexpensive, there is considerable opinion that Brazil could ill-afford to host the Games in the first place.

Sydney 2000 provided the blueprint for hosting a "sustainable Olympics"; costing only $5bn but delivering venues that could be used for a wide variety of purposes in the future, and which continue to generate income in the region of $750m per year for New South Wales.

Athens 2004 remains arguably the least sustainable Olympic Games ever, with its disused and crumbling facilities a lasting reminder of the perils of getting it wrong. Hosting the Olympics in 2004 did not put the Greek economy into its current ruinous state, but, at an estimated loss of $14.5bn, it was a significant contributing factor. Indeed, the post-Games shortfall averaged $50,000 per household.

The full picture?

We cannot accurately gauge the success (or failure) of the Games without acknowledging the long-term effect on the country – but this is impossible to measure precisely.

A government survey estimated somewhat vaguely that London 2012 will bring "tens of billions of pounds" into the UK by 2020, but how much of this will flow directly from hosting the Olympics? And, in a developing city like Rio, how much investment reaches the poorest inhabitants who face issues far removed from the glamour of the Games, such as toxic water pollution and high levels of violent crime?

It is clear that building brand new rail links to serve a new stadium on the outskirts of a city, or massive hotels that will soon be left empty, will be of little value to the lives of its residents now that the "Greatest Show on Earth" has rolled out of town.

Statistics show that the cities that bid for, but do not win, the right to host the Olympics experience a similar increase in national exports as the eventual host city. The mere act of bidding alone can showcase a city's name on a global stage, and demonstrates a willingness to grow and cultivate an economic upturn.

However, the withdrawals in bidding for the 2024 Olympics suggest that potential hosts are increasingly looking elsewhere to invest their cash. The fear of splurging billions of taxpayer dollars on a 3-week sporting folly with no real guarantee of lasting economic benefit is scaring off potential Olympic suitors, and it is difficult to blame them.

Getting it right

It's a difficult trick to perfect; even London 2012, viewed largely as a success, faced criticism for running over budget, failing to redevelop the East End with affordable housing, and selling the largely taxpayer-funded Olympic Stadium to West Ham for only £20m.

However, when done correctly, the Olympics can transform a city.

The most successful Games, including Sydney 2000, Barcelona 1992 and Los Angeles 1984 (which returned a $200m profit), utilised a lean budget, as many existing venues as possible, and private investment rather than taxpayer money. Barcelona invested most of its budget in new roads and sewage systems which are still in use by the city today, and has finally emerged from Madrid's shadow, transforming into one of the most popular tourist destinations in Europe.

Trump's campaign has been characterised by a lack of information, making America's future under his presidency rather uncertain. To what extent would his election promises be realised?

The notorious Mexican wall has been a signature promise in Trump's presidential campaign, but could this be a reality, or is it, as Clinton remarks, a mere "fantasy"? According to experts, the 2000 mile wall would cost $25 billion to build, and the Mexican government have wasted no pleasantries vehemently denying their funding of the project. Alongside difficulties posed by obtaining Congressional support and environmental regulation, this promise may be a difficult one to deliver, especially within a presidential term, as the wall could take years to build. Trump may have left the White House by the time his fantasy would become a reality.

Trump has also promised 25 million new jobs and tax cuts for everyone, but Oxford Economics are unconvinced. With no corresponding plan to cut federal spending, they predict that Trump's proposals would shrink the US economy by 5%. Trump's economic policies could potentially cost America 5 million jobs according to the Peterson International Institute of Economics. In contrast, the Tax Foundation states that lower tax rates will trigger growth, leading to more jobs. The plan is certainly "disruptive" and conflicting opinion makes its success hard to predict.

Change can definitely be expected in terms of foreign policy. The focus is advancing America's national interests and a Trump presidency could see a new relationship with Russia and NAFTA renegotiated or even reneged, which, under Article 2205, Trump could do without the support of Congress.

President Clinton

Clinton's campaign provides more information than Trump's, but are her policies any more robust?

Clinton's plan is less about tax cuts and more about ensuring the wealthy pay their share. Her economic plan is layered, involving a 30% tax on those with income over $1 million and a 4% 'surtax' on those earning more than $5 million. Higher taxes for the rich and few targeted tax cuts can therefore be expected if Clinton is elected president.

Despite this increased tax revenue, the Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget suggests that her plan would still add $200 billion to the national debt, particularly because she plans to increase federal spending, specifically $275 billion on infrastructure and $700 billion on education. However, they do state that the funding of this shortfall could be explained if further information is given.

In terms of foreign policy, we can expect to see a break from Obama's approach, with a tougher stance taken in respect of Iran, Russia and China. In the past, Clinton has been an advocate of interventionist measures, having previously voted for Libya intervention. Increased involvement in Syria has been a key pledge in her campaign, but will she follow through, and if so, what form will US action take?

How easily could Clinton make these changes? As we learnt from Obamacare, the Republican Party is unlikely to make it easy for her.

Only time will tell whether Trump will "make America great again" or whether Clinton really is "for America".

These figures dwarf UK election spending: in the 2015 general election, 57 political parties and non-party campaigners spent £39 million between them.

Why are US elections so expensive?

There are many factors, including America's large population, as well as the numerous positions being fought for across the nation at election time.

Another reason is the fact that fundraising is not as strictly regulated in the US as in other countries. Indeed, some point to the Supreme Court's 2010 decision in Citizens United v Federal Election Commission as the reason for increased spending. The Supreme Court ruled that a previous ban on corporations making contributions to candidates in US federal elections was unconstitutional, and that corporations and workers' unions should have the freedom to spend money on political campaigns, as long as they are independent of candidates. Super political action committees (super-PACs) were born - organisations which can raise money from individuals, corporations and other groups and spend their funds in US federal elections. Despite candidates being legally unable to control super-PACs, the US's Federal Election Commission has been fairly liberal in allowing groups to work with campaigns. However, US elections were expensive before the Citizens United decision and the importance of the Supreme Court's ruling can be overstated.

Does more spending equal more democracy?

Perhaps not. The Citizens United decision was passed by a slim 5-4 majority. Whilst some judges saw it as upholding American traditions of freedom of speech, one judge saw it as threatening "to undermine the integrity of election institutions across the nation" by enhancing the role of corporations and unions. Obviously, some countries, including the UK, cap parties' spending on the basis that wealth should not be the main player in political discourse.

Interestingly, whilst Clinton has condemned Citizens United and has committed to reversing the decision should she be elected, her most supportive super-PAC has apparently raised more money than any super-PAC ever. Ironically, the super-PAC's most generous contributor has said that he supports Clinton in "cleaning up the unfortunate disaster created by the activist court in Citizens United," meaning that this super-PAC may contribute to its own elimination.

Moreover, the amount spent on elections in the US is not reflected in turnout - in 2012 it was a fairly low 54.9% of the voting population. Indeed, such spending, especially on non-stop television advertising, may generate voter cynicism and fatigue. Conversely, some argue that high spending is a reflection of the health of American politics, and that elections are actually relatively cheap.

Whether or not America’s immense spending on elections is morally or politically justifiable, it seems that unless action is taken, spending is set to rise election year on election year. Presidential candidates will seemingly try to win power at any cost. 

The Celebrity Politician

The business magnate, Donald Trump, has quickly risen through the ranks to take the top spot as Republican nominee. One doesn’t get to his position in politics or in business without a big helping of determination, nerve and confidence. At what point, however, does determination become ruthlessness and confidence become arrogance or narcissism? Online, Trump is regularly associated with Narcissistic Personality Disorder (NPD): a serious psychological condition in which the sufferer may lack empathy, exploit others for their own gain and/or exaggerate their own achievements.

Could this be what has allowed Trump to shun political correctness without apology? Throughout the campaign he has seemed incapable to many of demonstrating an ability to approach sensitive issues with tact and due regard for the opinions of others. He may stand on an ideological platform with which some Americans do associate and he certainly appeals to those disenchanted with the political elite. That being said, if he is incapable of seeing beyond his potential personal gains, can he really broker important deals behind closed doors without the public recognition which he so eagerly craves?

Trump’s business experience is extensive and there are strong arguments in favour of electing politicians with skills and experience gained outside of the political environment. Nevertheless, even his commercial achievements appear emblazoned with narcissism; the majority of his exploits bear either his family name or, at minimum, his initials. Add to this the alleged use of charitable funds to purchase a 6 foot self-portrait and it becomes difficult to deny a level of self-obsession.

Arguably, all leaders are narcissistic to a point: in order to lead an inherent self-belief is vital. Since at least 2007, and probably long before, Hillary Clinton has thought of herself as presidential material. Her determination to reach this goal has been repeatedly tested, most notably when she conceded the Democratic nomination to Barack Obama in 2008.

But who is Hillary Clinton?

Unlike Trump, who expresses every emotion outwardly, Clinton appears more reserved. Throughout the campaign, she has been called "inauthentic" and whilst Trump captures and acts as a mouthpiece for populist anger, Clinton's calm and calculated responses make her appear unrelatable and symbolic of a political elite deaf to the day-to-day concerns of the masses.

Hillary lacks the natural charisma often associated with the current President and his First Lady. Whether this is due to a long political career of media management or to personal experiences (such as the accusations levelled against her husband), Clinton appears adept at managing her external impression to the point of obsession. Falling ill earlier in the campaign allowed a rare glimpse of her human side and of the exhausting internal strength required to constantly manage her outward presentation for fear of perceived failure.

The investigation into Clinton's use of a private email server whilst Secretary of State was seen by many as a severe demonstration of dishonesty and, thus far, her explanation has failed to satisfy some voters' doubts . With the FBI’s decision not to prosecute and with no believable show of remorse, Clinton's inability to ‘relate’ has cemented her in the minds of many as deceitful and part of an elite class that is above the law. The most recent discovery of 650,000 new emails announced so close to the vote will undoubtedly add to voters' confusion and could be the final chink in her armour.

Decision day

On 8 November 2016, the American people will have to choose between seemingly a serious narcissist and an obsessive controller. With personalities taking priority over policies, each of these candidates has traits which do not easily align with the job role. However, I wonder if it is fair or even desirable to expect people who are offering to take on such a high-profile role to retain the characteristics which we expect from everyday social interaction. Many of us would crumble under this intense pressure and perhaps developing exaggerated attributes is a necessary coping mechanism and a means of attracting attention in such a competitive environment. Only time will tell whether these traits stand up to scrutiny or become the candidates' downfall. 

Weibo

Weibo is a microblog platform which is very similar to Twitter in that posts can be viewed by the public. The candidates have fan pages on the platform, both of which were flooded with comments after videos of the debates were uploaded.

The majority of Trump supporters seem to have adopted a personal approach. Posts state that Trump demonstrates the "leadership and capability to rebuild a strong America" and has "declared war" against the "corrupted Washington and its interested parties". Many praise him as "energetic" and "true", hoping that he will win the "tough battle". Trump's attitude against the Trans-Pacific Partnership (a trade agreement excluding China, much to the chagrin of the Chinese public) was also welcomed.

Rather than praising Clinton's personality or policies, the former Secretary of State's Chinese supporters seem to focus mostly on the "catastrophe" and "chaos" Trump would bring to America. Trump's improper statements during the campaign trail are the preferred ammunition. The general consensus is that Clinton is a more sensitive and skilled politician while Trump is a mere "businessman".

WeChat

WeChat is a private instant messenger with a Facebook-like function called "Moments". Posts on Moments are only open to selected friends.

Interestingly, most user opinions on Moments suggest a dislike for both candidates. Due to the platform's private nature, comments are generally more derogatory. A typical comment regarding the debates states: "The American Empire is so rubbish – they are neither civilised nor modern. I am so disappointed." It is pointed out that the American people may have a choice other than the two-party system, noting the improvement of the Spanish economy despite a lack of functioning government.

Summary

There is a clear mixture of views on the presidential election among Chinese grassroots 'netizens': the supporters of each side have demonstrated an equal level of power on Weibo, while many refuse to support either candidate on WeChat.

Following the mixture of views, there are a number of online posts mocking the two candidates and the election campaign. A frequently seen way of making such mockeries is to combine the video or screenshots of the debates with lyrics to mimic an old-style karaoke video. One of the most widely spread examples is a video of the candidates' debate combined with "Love in Storm" by Hong Kong singers Jacky Cheung and Karen Tong (the original song was for loving couples who quarrel).

Watching from afar, and conscious of the likely impact of the election on the Chinese economy and political strategy, members of the public have expressed their mixed views with a teasing attitude. The candidates are depicted as a quarrelling couple arguing in a very emotional (and probably not very sensible) way. The title of a recent article best summarises the situation: "The US is making a mockery of democracy, and China must be loving it". 

Economy

The economy is the first of the three main battlegrounds, with the two key clashes being taxes and employment.

Clinton wants to increase taxes on the wealthy and fund free university programmes for low- and middle-income families. Trump wants to reduce the number of income tax brackets and cut corporate taxes from 35% to 15%.

Clinton aims to create 10 million jobs through manufacturing, renewable energy, and small business investment. The goal is to improve employment rates and expand American infrastructure simultaneously. Trump plans to create 25 million jobs and increase American infrastructure investment; he is yet to explain how to achieve this.

Foreign Policy

The second great battleground lies with foreign policy. The 'war on terror' and trade deals have become prominent dividers during the campaign.

Clinton plans to expand America's role in fighting IS, but opposes commitment of ground troops. She supports American involvement in NATO and wants to escalate counter attacks against Russia. Clinton also proposes increasing numbers of resettled Syrian refugees in America. Trump wants more ground troops fighting IS and greater western powers' commitment to combatting terrorism. He believes that admitting Middle-Eastern refugees will seriously threaten American security, so an 'extreme' vetting process, including ideological testing, is necessary. Trump has also called for a wall to be built on the USA- Mexico border, funded by Mexico.

Clinton wants to openly trade with the rest of the world, but opposes the current formulation of the TPP. Trump intends to put American interests at the heart of trade deals. He opposes the TPP, but is willing to renegotiate on NAFTA if American interests can be met. Trump plans to tax Mexican goods at 35% and Chinese good at 45%.

Domestic Policy

Domestically, abortion and law and order have gained prominence due to America's long history of unrest threatening domestic stability.

Clinton opposes abortion bans after 20 weeks and wants greater federal funding for abortion services to rape victims. She criticises efforts to cut government funding for women's health efforts. Trump believes abortion should be illegal. His statement on the punishment of women having abortions was quickly retracted. Trump has settled for advocating an abortion ban exception for rape, incest, and life of mother.

America is experiencing high levels of gun crime and racially motivated killings. Clinton opposes mass incarceration and mandatory minimum sentences, believing police racial bias must be addressed. She also wants tighter background checks on gun licences and a ban on assault weapons. Trump believes political correctness has hindered the ability to fight crime, and that police profiling prevents terrorism. Trump endorses licensed gun owners carrying a concealed weapon at their will.

The candidates differ greatly in their policies. For consideration of how some of the policies may be implemented, look out for Robert Paine's post later in the series where he considers the future of America under the potential elected President.

The American people have a tough choice to make on 8 November. Clinton could become America's first female President. Trump could become America's oldest President. The margin of victory may be closer than Brexit. The big question: who will win? 

According to the U.S. Constitution, a presidential hopeful needs to be:

• A “natural born” US citizen (read: born on US soil, though even this can be stretched);
• At least 35 years old; and
• Resident for 14 years.

Although technically this means that middle-aged Joe Bloggs from Utah is eligible, the reality is that you don’t stand much of a chance unless you’re a senator, five-star military general… or billionaire businessman with a penchant for reality TV. The candidate then needs to attract significant positive attention from the media, donors and party officials before he or she can formally declare his or her candidacy and begin campaigning.

Step 2: Become the party’s nominee

Beginning in February, elections are held in every state and overseas territory and the winner of each collects a number of “delegates” – these are party members with the power to vote for that candidate at the party conventions held in July, where candidates are formally confirmed.

Step 3: Pick your running mate

Though House of Cards would have us believe that your spouse is a good fit for VP, a more sensible approach is to assess where the presidential candidate is weak – both geographically and demographically – and pick a running mate to plug the gap.

Tim Kaine brings a lot to the party for Hillary: he comes from a swing state, speaks fluent Spanish, is an experienced politician at local, state and federal levels and is, by all accounts, a nice guy. Clinton has battled the public’s dislike of her throughout the campaign and Kaine has gone some way to ‘softening’ the ticket, as well as (hopefully) bringing home Virginia and the Latino vote.

Like Kaine, Mike Pence was a safe choice for Trump as he is an experienced politician and is relatively low key. The latter characteristic has positioned him as welcome relief to the deluge of theatrics that Trump has doled out over the course of the campaign. However, Pence has arguably done a better job at positioning himself as a steady candidate for the Republican nomination in 2020 than promoting Trump for the job in this round; his ‘win’ in the VP debate was a masterclass in deflecting attacks on Trump’s controversial policies but also showed a distinct lack of solidarity with his running mate.

Step 4: The Debates

The Republican and Democratic candidates participate in three televised debates which, traditionally, focus on the key policies each candidate has for his or her term in office. However, this year these ‘debates’ (I use this term loosely) have been largely devoid of meaningful back and forth on key policies and instead have dwindled into a flood of personal attacks more closely resembling reality TV. The polls show Clinton prevailing in all three thanks to her cool head and Trump’s persistent jibes and deflection on controversial policies and campaign ‘mishaps’.

Step 5: Election Day

Ever wondered why the election is always the second Tuesday in November? It dates back to America’s historically agrarian society, when November was the quietest month for rural workers. Holding it on a Tuesday allowed them to travel to towns and cities to vote without needing to leave on a Sunday (enjoy that fun fact at your next pub quiz).

Polling booths will open on the morning of 8 November with around 120 million votes expected to be cast. Counting begins immediately and by around 11pm EST (4am GMT) we should have an idea as to which candidate has triumphed.

Step 6: Take office

President Obama’s term will officially end at noon on 20 January 2017 and the President-Elect will be sworn in at the Inauguration Ceremony. Only then will the presidential ‘baton’ officially pass over to either Hillary Clinton or Donald Trump.

So there you have it - the road to the White House in six easy steps. Although the campaign process is hopefully now demystified, just how it gave us two of the most disliked candidates of all time remains an enigma…

Kira Systems (Kira) and its rival RAVN are due diligence and contract review systems currently used by Clifford Chance, DLA Piper, Freshfields and Linklaters, BLP and Travers Smith. These tools analyse hundreds of documents a minute and produce reports which show different issues and trends across documents. Kira also allows lawyers to train the algorithm and to tailor the system to its own purpose.

Luminance, another speedy due diligence tool which analyses hundreds of documents a minute, is used by Slaughter and May. It also charts lawyers' progress by showing which fee earner is assigned to each task and creates a feedback loop for notes and questions.

Changing tack from due diligence: Thomson Reuters is utilising IBM Watson, a cognitive computing platform which can continuously learn through previous interactions. Reuters is aiming to use this system for tasks including deep content analysis, processing natural language, decision support and evidence-based learning. Its output is aimed at helping law firms and in-house lawyers make legal and business decisions with better data to hand, improving their efficiency and effectiveness.

Assistance in the real world

Learning about the ins and outs of these systems is all well and good, but how are they practically helping lawyers?

Currently it seems that most of these new AI systems have one primary objective: cutting the time taken for due diligence. Practically, for corporate lawyers at least, this is a broadly positive development. It reduces the number of hours spent on monotonous and repetitive document review tasks, and allows for the time saved to be put to good use in analysing the problems arising from the due diligence exercise. Trainees, who often conduct the document review side of due diligence, are likely to feel the benefits of this technology the most. More senior lawyers will be able to focus on the more engaging aspects of corporate work to which they can truly add value and expertise.

The uptake of AI is likely to increase, as demonstrated by the fact that none of the above firms used RAVN or Kira until little over a year ago. Slaughter and May now plans to use Luminance for half of its London-based M&A deal work to help speed up the normally arduous due diligence process.

However, the use of AI systems is still largely limited to the corporate law arena. It will be interesting to see what impact the systems can have on the litigation sphere; in a complex dispute, disclosure can involve tens of millions of documents and so using AI should be a logical next step. Perhaps firms’ reticence is because the courts have only just started to set guidelines for the use of AI in law.

In February, RPC won the widely publicised Pyrrho High Court ruling which approved (for the first time in the English Courts) use of predictive coding in a litigation disclosure exercise. The Pyrrho judgment was then successfully relied upon by BLP in May to obtain approval of predictive coding where another party contested its use. These favourable judgments may help to accelerate the creation and acceptance of disclosure-based AI technologies.

Conclusion

Earlier in the year, we considered whether technology would mean an "end to lawyers" and it would seem that the conclusion reached by David still rings true - AI is assisting lawyers to move away from one-dimensional repetitive data-intensive tasks but not yet threatening our jobs. Whilst the use of AI is growing rapidly and the number of firms willing to use it is increasing, particularly to assist in processing huge amounts of data, ultimately it does not yet have the capability to deal with the later stages of a deal or litigation. 

Feng Shui - two Chinese words that literally mean "wind" and "water". Originating from China, it is a complex belief system that deals with the relationship between people and their surroundings and is often used in household designs to help boost prosperity, good health, and fortune.

It will often take years of study to fully master the wisdom of Feng Shui. Some people make a living out of it, training to become Feng Shui Masters, and offering consultations to enable people to set up their homes to maximise the Feng Shui. However, not everyone is a believer; many people view it with the same suspicious attitude as they have towards horoscopes and Tarot cards, or consider it total mumbo-jumbo.

On a personal level, I believe Feng Shui is a practice which enables people's moods to be lifted and helps them to live comfortably and work efficiently. While some Feng Shui principles are difficult to understand, some are very logical and are more commonly accepted by people in the modern age. Below are a few of these Feng Shui rules which aim to help people in the workplace.

How to use Feng Shui to boost your productivity 

1. Place a plant on your desk

Plants symbolise life and energy. A thriving green plant is said to attract good fortune and absorb bad energy. In an office setting, it is common for the Chinese to put small plants on their desks. However note that not every plant is the right one. The plant should be about six inches tall, with big round leaves. The bigger the leaves and the more leaves there are the better, since it is the leaves that absorb the bad energy. An example of a good desk plant is an evergreen. A cactus on the other hand will not provide much Feng Shui assistance at all with some believing that the sharp needle-like leaves lead to bad relationships with your colleagues!

2. Sit with your back to the wall

From the perspective of Feng Shui, the best position for a house is one that faces water with its back to a mountain. Applying the same principle to a workplace, you should sit with your back to a solid wall. Here the wall represents the mountain and a solid foundation that will help your career. In contrast, a bad Feng Shui position would involve you sitting with your back to a corridor; the corridor does not provide good Feng Shui and on a more practical note it is where people often walk which may make it difficult to focus on your work.

If it is not possible to change your seat, consider sitting on a chair with back support, or putting a screen behind your seat in place of a wall to separate yourself from the bad energy.

3. Keep a clear desk

As with the saying "a clear desk is a clear mind", Feng Shui believers also support the idea of having a tidy desk. A messy workspace and sharp objects will attract bad luck, so it is better to keep your desk uncluttered and put away scissors and staplers in safe positions.

Some people will put fewer objects on the right side of the desk based on the rule of "Azure Dragon on the left, White Tiger on the right". Azure Dragon and White Tiger are two mythological creatures of ancient China, and the White Tiger, which sits on the right, represents negative energy and should not be disturbed. A modern explanation for fewer objects on the right side is not to hinder the movement of your mouse!

Conclusion

After reading the tips above, do you feel any wiser, or do you think it's all superstition? Whatever you feel about it, Feng Shui still influences a large number of people doing business in China. Next time when you have a meeting with a Chinese client, the Azure Dragon may be a good conversation starter!

Surprisingly, political adverts fall outside of the scope of the ASA's powers and there is no redress available to voters who have been influenced by false or misleading political adverts. Given the reliance of the electorate on political advertising when making decisions on how to vote, it is arguable that politicians and political groups should be held accountable for claims made in the lead up to elections and referendums. Taking the EU referendum as an example, much of the press in the immediate aftermath demonstrated voters' outrage at having been outright lied to in campaign adverts. However, despite receiving over 350 complaints, the ASA confirmed that it was "powerless" to deal with these referendum-related adverts.

Up until 1999, non-broadcast political advertising did, to a certain extent, fall within the scope of some of the advertising codes.  Political adverts could be investigated if they adversely portrayed a public figure without permission, but not if there were allegations that the advert was dishonest. However, following the introduction of the Human Rights Act 1998, questions were raised over the suitability of regulation of political adverts on the basis that it could potentially interfere with freedom of speech. 

Whilst it is clearly fundamental to the democratic process to protect freedom of expression, is it justifiable to do so in a way that makes politicians completely unaccountable?  Interestingly, in other sectors, freedom of expression does not provide free rein to publish inaccurate or misleading information.  For example, the importance of freedom of the press is paramount, yet newspapers and magazines are still held accountable for what they publish by the Independent Press Standards Organisation.  

Guy Parker, Chief Executive of the ASA cites a lack of political buy-in as the reason for the ASA being unable to regulate political adverts. Other commentators have pointed to a lack of resources available to the ASA to investigate political as well as commercial adverts. Whatever the reason, clearly there is public appetite for the regulation of political adverts. A petition calling for it to be made illegal for any UK political figure to knowingly lie or mislead has received over 78,000 signatures whilst another seeking an independent office to monitor political campaigns has received in excess of 165,000 signatures.

Consumers are protected against misleading, harmful and offensive advertising. The electorate should be afforded the same courtesy.

The effect of art on a business's employees

One of the biggest costs for any business is its staff, so it pays to maintain a motivated workforce which is  happy with its office space. Office layouts vary greatly, but it is clear that employees respond well to those that include art. A recent survey found that 93% of workers believe art makes the office more welcoming. Furthermore, research has recently found that art in the workplace not only increases staff wellbeing, it also increases productivity.

Dr Craig Knight, head of research group Identity Realisation, undertook a study which monitored the productivity of workers in a 'lean' office, comprising only items necessary to complete work tasks, an 'enriched' office, where artwork and plants were added, and an 'empowered' office, where employees could arrange the artwork and plants themselves. Workers in the enriched office were 15% more productive than those in the lean office, and those in the empowered office were a significant 30% more productive.

For the above findings to work, employees need to be able to see the artwork from their desks. Only placing artwork in the public spaces of the office, as many companies seem to do, is therefore unlikely to be effective.

Allowing employees to become involved in artistic decisions in the office means employees can choose the art they are inspired by, leading to increased productivity. It also creates a stronger sense of pride and identity between employees and their company. This is a mantra that RPC itself has adopted, allowing employees to submit their own photographs to become office artwork.

The effect of art on a business' image

The Banca Monte dei Paschi di Siena (BMPS) is believed to have been the first company to start a corporate art collection when it commissioned artwork in 1472. Many businesses continue to collect art and sponsor art exhibitions, although their reasons for doing so likely differ from BMPS building a valuable art collection as an investment.

Art as a branding tool

Art exhibitions, and particularly large, well-advertised exhibitions, can provide a business with excellent publicity outside its industry. There are plenty of examples of art being used in this way in the legal sector, such as the Taylor Wessing Photographic Portrait Prize and the Stewarts Law RCA Secret Exhibition.

Outside exhibitions, many companies sponsor artistic institutes. John Lewis and Clifford Chance both sponsor the Royal Academy of Arts, whilst Deutsche Bank sponsors the Frieze Art Fair. Some go even further. Collyer-Bristow has been running its own art gallery for the last 20 years, regularly holding exhibitions within its London office, whilst Simmons & Simmons is currently running its first client-facing selling exhibition which is curated by a litigation associate with proceeds supporting 21 different institutions. Simmons has had a long standing art collection, which is frequently updated by curator and former partner Stuart Evans.

Sponsoring art in these ways enhances a company's PR profile. It also provides the company with a wider identity and creates a very positive image to both those inside and outside the company's industry.

Art and a business's values

The art a business sponsors and, more commonly, the art a business displays in its offices, not only says a great deal about the style and character of a company, but also allows a company to express its values.

Deutsche Bank, owner of the largest collection of corporate art in the world (with around 60,000 pieces of art), is a good example here. 'ArtWorks', the Bank's global art programme, is designed to promote art that questions perceptions and recognises contemporary problems.

Placing such emphasis on art and tackling issues through this medium allows a company to demonstrate the values important to its business, both externally and to its employees, and allows the business to reflect on these on a daily basis.

Art's value

In short, businesses can benefit greatly from using art beyond hanging a quickly-chosen print on a meeting room wall. The impact of art on a business, both directly on its employees and indirectly on its reputation, can be significant. Companies should consider how they currently use art, and whether their business could become more successful by re-thinking their strategy.

Yet, in tennis, battles are not confined to matches as disparity between men and women’s prize money remains a contentious issue despite tennis being heralded as one of the more egalitarian sports when it comes to winnings.

First serve

Male and female tennis players have been paid the same prize money at Wimbledon for nearly 10 years, along with other grand slam tournaments such as the US Open, which was the first to offer equal prize money in 1973. However, in non-grand slam tournaments women continue to be paid considerably less. In 2015 Novak Djokovic, men’s world number one, received $21.65m in prize money whereas Serena Williams, women’s world number one, won less than half of that amount ($10.58m). The disparity is most stark at the top of the rankings; interestingly, women actually earn more than men at around positions 20 to 30, but the difference swings back in men's favour from around position 30 and below.

For some, the idea of equal pay for male and female tennis players is absurd. This year Raymond Moore, CEO of the Indian Wells tournament in America, claimed that the women's WTA Tour "ride[s] on the coat-tails of men" and that if he were a female player he would "go down every night on [his] knees and thank God that Roger Federer and Rafael Nadal were born because they have carried this sport."

The rally: what should pay be based upon anyway?

Viewing figures?

The first shot comes from Djokovic who stated that men should be paid more because they have more spectators than women's games. In return, Serena Williams has remarked that the 2015 women's US Open final actually sold out before the men's.

There is often a large difference between television viewing figures for men and women's events: the 2015 Wimbledon men's final on the BBC had 9.2 million viewers whereas the women's had 4.3 million viewers. Interestingly, however, the 2013 and 2014 US Open women's finals were watched by more viewers than the men's, which may be due to Serena Williams’ popularity. Nonetheless, men's tour television deals are worth considerably more than the women’s.

Some obviously question whether these factors, which indicate relative appeal, are actually important when considering the pay gap. Is the current popularity of men’s - as compared to women’s - tennis simply a reflection of the media’s arguable greater interest in men’s sports?

Time on court?

Other arguments supporting unequal pay for men and women in tennis are based upon the fact that women play three sets as opposed to five set matches at Grand Slams and therefore spend less time on court. If one runs this argument, the current position is quite irrational: women are now paid the same as men at Grand Slams where they play fewer sets and they are paid less than men at the other tournaments, where they play the same number of sets. Moreover, linking time on court to pay is perhaps unwise. Should a male tennis player be paid less for finishing a match in three sets rather than five?

Match point

The gender pay gap in tennis is sadly symptomatic of the inconsistencies throughout the entertainment industry, most notably in film, and the discussion raises interesting questions about what should determine pay more generally.

For tennis, looking at it in simple terms, a female winner should have the capacity to earn the same as a male winner at equivalent tournaments: they have each performed to the highest level in their sport. On this basis, differences in prize winnings are unjustifiable. Further, to pay according to whether society currently prefers watching men’s over women’s tennis is perhaps unfair.

For now, at least, clashes will continue to occur on and off the tennis courts. 

The Leave campaign has repeatedly argued that leaving the EU will save money which can be diverted towards NHS funding. The Institute for Fiscal Studies (IFS) has calculated that the net UK contribution to the EU over the next few years will be approximately £8bn a year. However, this is balanced by the potential risks to the economy that a Brexit poses – a negative effect of just 0.6% on national income would cancel out any saving.

Demand

It is clear that an increased population means increased demands on the health service. Pro- Leave campaigners have suggested that remaining in the EU will lead to increased migration and demands on the NHS (noting that a number of countries could possibly join the EU in the near future).

Staffing / Recruitment

Meanwhile, 130,000 non-British Europeans work in the NHS, making up around 10% of NHS doctors and 4% of nurses. As noted above, under the Vienna Convention, these individuals are entitled to stay in the UK, so there is unlikely to be an immediate staffing crisis.

Reciprocal treatment arrangements

Whilst part of the EU, the UK benefits from reciprocal treatment arrangements, whereby it is able to reclaim the costs spent treating EU nationals in the UK (and other EU countries can reclaim their costs from the UK).

If we were to leave the EU some kind of reciprocal arrangement would need to be negotiated, which would mean setting up and agreeing a system of charges with each country. Whilst this is achievable, it may take some time to organise, and lead to delays or increased administrative pressures on healthcare staff.

Research Funding

Currently, the UK is the largest beneficiary of EU funding for health research; the Horizon 2020 programme, for example, invested £232m into NHS providers in 2014/2015.  A leave vote would not necessarily mean the NHS would no longer benefit from cross-country research programmes and cooperation, but parting ways with the EU would almost certainly mean saying goodbye to a significant portion of the research funding the NHS currently receives.

At the very least it is not unlikely that there would be some "tinkering" of current legislation that has proven unpopular with some businesses in the UK, reducing workers' rights in the process.  For example, taking some of our legislation which derives from European directives:

• If a company wishes to make 20 or more employees redundant at one establishment within 90 days, the rules on "collective information and consultation" are triggered and can be time-consuming for business. However, if we were to leave the EU, the UK would be free to lessen the burden for employers (perhaps by raising this threshold to, for example, 100 employees, or by shortening the time periods which must elapse before redundancies can be made).
• Similarly, employers are currently restricted by the Working Time Regulations which limit the working week to a maximum of 48 hours absent an effective opt out.  This has long been a sore point for the UK Government and so a Brexit would pave the way to raise or even abolish this limit.
• Under the TUPE Regulations (which govern the movement of employees if a business is sold or service outsourced) there are limits on changing an employee's contract after they have moved across to the new business, allowing employees to keep their original employment terms in many circumstances. The Government may well remove or soften this restriction following a Brexit to allow the terms and conditions of new employees to be harmonised with the existing terms of the buyer's employees. Movement to abolish these regulations would be welcomed by employers, though certainly not by trade unions.

Traditionally, our Government has not had the best track record in protecting workers' rights. Take, for example, the right to paid holiday. Prior to 1997 there was no statutory right to paid annual leave; however this changed with the introduction of the Working Time Regulations 1998 which created the statutory right to four weeks' annual leave. The UK Government was so opposed to this directive that it went to the European Court of Justice to attempt to get it annulled (United Kingdom v Council of the European Union).

European employment law sets a minimum not a ceiling for our employment rights. Therefore, without these minimum standards set by Europe there is room for a shift away from laws such as those above which protect employees in the long term. UK employment law has always been subject to the political will and sensibilities of the government in power at any one time; be that a desire to strip back trade union power or aiming to increase family friendly rights.  Removing the ultimate checks and balances of European law will provide freedom for the Government to set its own legislative agenda on workers' rights which might well be to the detriment of the average employee.

The shape of IP law in the UK post-Brexit would depend on the replacement legal model chosen. However, under almost all possible models EU Rights would likely cease to have effect in the UK.

In the event of a leave vote, the UK might introduce successor rights or transitional provisions to provide EU Rights holders with protection in the UK. However, there is a possibility that businesses relying on these pan-European rights will need to apply for new national rights (and incur the costs of doing so).

Owners of existing EU Rights will be affected by a diminishment in value of those rights should they cease to offer protection in the UK.  In addition, EU TMs that are only used in the UK could become vulnerable to non-use revocation following a Brexit.

Patents

The European Patent System is not governed by an EU institution meaning that a Brexit would not necessarily affect the UK's participation in the system.  On the other hand, the future of the Unified Patent System (which will offer a single patent covering most EU countries and which is expected to reduce the cost of obtaining patent protection) would look uncertain following a vote to leave the EU. At the very least, the Unified Patent Court Agreement would require amendment before being implemented meaning that the regime (which is currently due to be fully operational in 2017 if the UK stays in the EU) is likely to suffer significant delay if we vote 'leave'.

Copyright

Although copyright law in England and Wales has been largely influenced by EU law, it is essentially an area of national law, meaning that there will not necessarily be any immediate effect on this area if we leave the EU. Long term we could see a divergence between copyright law in the UK and the EU as UK courts would, in theory, no longer be bound by EU case law (although in practice UK judges might continue to consider EU case law and regulations in their decisions).

Practical Considerations

If the UK votes to leave the EU, the actual exit date is unlikely to be before 2018. Before then businesses would need to review their IP portfolios to ensure that their IP rights would be adequately protected under the new legal model.  This would be a key consideration not only for businesses with an existing IP portfolio but also for those looking to buy or sell a business or an IP asset. In addition, businesses would need to review existing IP licences to ensure that they will be effective post-Brexit. 

The impact of a Brexit on finance agreements is likely to be limited: choice of law and parties' rights and obligations should remain the same. Specific Brexit provisions are unlikely to be accepted and may be counterproductive, given that there would probably be specific post-Brexit legislation.

However, a Brexit may adversely affect some businesses, which could potentially trigger a material adverse change. This would likely constitute an event of default and entitle a lender to terminate the loan agreement and enforce its security. Due to the uncertainty and financial volatility caused by the referendum, businesses may experience a drop in income with the slowdown in market activity as customers hold off on spending and investing. In the long term, businesses will be affected if they can no longer rely on free movement of goods, capital or people. Additionally, lenders may suffer increased costs with the introduction of new laws or regulations.

Insolvency proceedings

Furthermore, a Brexit may well push debtors into insolvency and therefore lenders will be concerned about how enforceable their security is.

For insolvent entities domiciled and trading only in the UK, the effect of a Brexit would be limited as UK insolvency legislation is not derived from EU law. The future of multi-jurisdictional insolvencies however is more uncertain.  

Where an insolvent entity has its main centre of main interests within an EU country, the EC Regulation on Insolvency Proceedings 2000 (the EC Regulation) applies (soon to be replaced by the "recast" Insolvency Regulation 2015). The EC Regulation governs the jurisdiction for a debtor's insolvency proceedings, the applicable law, and provides automatic recognition of those proceedings in other EU member states. If the UK were to leave the EU, the EC Regulation would cease to apply to it.

Despite this, a Brexit would probably not be severe enough to stop debtors and lenders from choosing to use English insolvency and restructuring procedures (i.e. the choice of England as the forum for such proceedings). Particularly given that one of the main tools – the English scheme of arrangement – is not covered by EC Regulation.

Access to European markets

Access to European markets is currently permitted via "passporting" rights under EU legislation. These rights give UK-based financial institutions the ability to sell products and services into other EEA member states. Without them, institutions may need to explore whether their business streams should be moved to other hubs within the EU.

Similarly, EU legislation currently enables an issuer of debt securities to "passport" its prospectus offering of debt securities to other EEA member states. If the UK was unable to agree any equivalent arrangement, a UK issuer would find it more difficult and costly to market its securities in Europe, as the EU could block access to the market entirely in relation to certain services (e.g. some retail products and euro trading). If the UK's ability to access the single market for financial services is not preserved there could be significant consequences for the banking and finance sector. 

A report commissioned by the National Association of Estate Agents and the Association of Rental Letting Agents (the Report) suggests that a Brexit is likely to reduce demand. There are multiple factors at work here:

1. Lower immigration rates if, as is expected, Britain opted not to maintain the current free movement of people agreement with the EU. Indeed, the Office for National Statistics estimates that the population could be up to 1.06 million smaller in 10 years compared with principal forecasts.

2. The relocation of foreign firms to other EU countries in order to gain access to the single market. This has the potential to impact on both commercial and residential property if a substantial number of employees elect to move with them.

3. The UK property market may be perceived as a less attractive option for foreign investors, particularly in light of the political and economic uncertainty that would exist as the details of the transition are worked out.    

A reduction in the demand for property would impact prices. The Report estimates that the average UK house will be worth £2,300 less by 2018 if Britain votes to leave. The effect will be worse in London, where the average house will be worth £7,500 less; that is a cumulative reduction in value of £26.5bn. These figures are in line with forecasts from other sources. Indeed, the IMF envisages a “sharp drop” in house prices and the Treasury has suggested that prices would be between 10% and 18% lower than base level projections by 2018. Although this might be good news for first-time buyers, the Treasury believes that any benefit is likely to be outweighed by increased borrowing costs and a decline in real wages.

A vote to leave may also impact on the UK's housing supply. According to the Report, 4.7% of the workforce and 9% of sole proprietors in the construction industry were born in other European countries. Greater restrictions on foreign workers coming to the UK may therefore harm our ability to build new homes. There are also indications of a potential impact on finance; a KPMG poll of 25 real estate investors with assets under management of over $400bn suggested that two thirds of them believe that a Brexit would result in less inward investment into UK property.

What about the impact on the rental market? In the short-term at least, this is likely to be minimal. The Report suggests that there even may be a slight increase in demand as EU nationals decide to relocate whilst they still can during the transitional period. The long-term effect, however, is likely to be more severe. European nationals are far more likely to be renters than homeowners, so if fewer migrate to the UK there is likely to be an impact on prices. However, if the reduction is to such an extent as to prevent landlords recouping their costs, this may lead to an exodus from the market which will, in turn, push prices back up.

With the largest portion of our pay cheques invariably going on rent or mortgage payments, the impact of a Brexit on the housing market is likely to be acutely felt. George Osborne has suggested that a Brexit could cause house prices to fall by 10-18% by 2018, although ratings agency, Fitch, has suggested that the house price fall could be by as much as 25%. Although good news for prospective purchasers finding it easier to get onto the property ladder, this could leave existing homeowners heading towards a position of negative equity.

The cost of food

The UK is a net importer of food, importing 2.5 times more food from the EU than it does from the rest of the world; the EU is a much more important trading partner for the UK than the UK is a trade partner for the EU. The general consensus is that a Brexit would result in a weaker pound, with the Treasury estimating that leaving would lead to a 12% fall in the pound's value. A weaker pound would result in more expensive imports. Any new tariffs added to the cost of imported food would further increase prices, with the Prime Minister estimating that leaving the EU would increase the cost of food and drink by almost 3% (or £120 a year for the average family).

However, another view is that the price of food may decrease as the UK would no longer be subject to the EU's arguably "protectionist" policies. The EU's controversial common agricultural policy injects billions into the UK's farming industry, but has been criticised by some for inflating the price of food.

Employment

A Brexit could affect the wage we bring home, and our working environment. EU regulations impact the hours we work, our annual and parental leave, and anti-discrimination laws. Some of these regulations could be rolled back following a Brexit, although in practice these rights are likely to continue to be protected. Perhaps of greater significance is the effect on the free movement of EU workers. EU citizens' right to live and work in any of the member states would no longer be automatic, making it harder for businesses to recruit workers from the EU. Workers already employed in the EU may have to return to their country of origin. While migrant workers have contributed to economic growth and the income tax coffers, others argue that they have forced down wages for British workers.  It is estimated that the jobs of three million people in the UK derive from trade with Europe, and it is uncertain how a Brexit would change the demand for these jobs.

On a final note…

An influencing factor as to whether a firm will struggle or flourish post-Brexit depends on its range of practice areas. The impact is likely to be greater in certain practice areas such as Intellectual Property (IP), Employment and Financial Services Regulation.

IP

UK IP rights are heavily influenced by EU law. Whilst national IP rights would not be affected by a Brexit, all pan-EU IP rights - such as the European trade mark - would cease to apply in the UK. IP lawyers will need to help their UK clients with the transition to ensure existing IP rights continue to benefit from protection in the EU.

Employment

Much of UK employment law emanates from the EU, including discrimination rights and transfer of undertakings. Whilst the government could repeal these laws, this is realistically unlikely to happen. The biggest likely concern is the restrictive impact that a Brexit could have on the free movement of workers. Employment lawyers will need to assist their clients with the effects on both existing and future migrant workers.

Financial Services Regulation

The legal framework governing UK financial institutions is largely derived from EU law. In particular, financial firms benefit from the EU financial services "passport" which allows firms authorised in the UK to carry on business in other EEA states. Lawyers will be asked to advise on how the post-Brexit regulation model will affect businesses with operations elsewhere in Europe.

Whilst advisors to financial institutions may see a flurry of work in the immediate aftermath of a Brexit, the UK's position as the EU's largest financial centre could be jeopardised by a Brexit which may lead to a re-positioning of financial services.

People

As noted above, a Brexit will likely result in a restriction on the free movement of workers between the UK and the EU. As with many other businesses, law firms are equally as susceptible to this risk, losing out on current talent and future potential.

Access to the EU

EU services "passports" and the free movement of workers have encouraged companies to invest in the UK as an access point to the EU internal market. Many law firms have developed their reputations and expertise through being able to provide cross-border advice to those businesses and are permitted to do so under EU rules. A Brexit may result in companies relocating to another EU member state, meaning UK law firms can no longer provide the cross-border legal advice that clients need. On the other hand, firms that already have a presence in an EU country will see this as an advantage over competitors.

Conclusion

Neonicotinoids (neonics for short) are used in the agriculture industry against sap-feeding insects like aphids. They are also a possible culprit behind an alarming rise in the rate of bee deaths. Whilst research has started to indicate that neonics negatively affect bees, the EU's precautionary approach to environmental pollution made it one of the first international organisations to take action.

As well as being precautionary, the EU approach to environmental protection promotes prevention and rectification of pollution at source, and is based on the polluter paying for it. In contrast, the British approach, at least up to the 1980s, was to deal with pollution by diluting and dispersing it, and only after “sound science” existed that it was causing a problem.

Environmental policies introduced by the EU have had a wide impact on the UK. Birds like the hen harrier are protected from threats like habitat loss and hunting by the Birds Directive. The Water Framework Directive sets out a joined up approach to improving the status of all rivers, lakes, estuaries and coastal and ground water and progressively more stringent emission standards have driven down limits for exhaust emissions for new vehicles.

As a supranational organisation, the EU is more likely to deliver stronger environmental protections than Britain would do on its own. Individual countries often have weaker incentives to deal with environmental issues because the impacts are remote or dispersed. One example is air pollution - much of the UK’s sulphur and nitrogen pollutants are exported to continental Europe by prevailing winds. Taking decisions at a supranational level means decision makers are more aware of the bigger picture impacts of environmental degradation.

However, removing the influence of Brussels over the environment could help avoid disenchantment and allow faster improvements to schemes that do not perform as expected. Much has been made of the fact that powerful kettles could be the next home appliance facing extinction under an EU scheme to fight climate change, a big issue in a nation that consumes six times more tea than the European average. And the EU was seen as slow to respond to accusations that the CAP and Common Fisheries Policy encourage excessively intensive farming and the discard of millions of tonnes of edible fish a year.

Bees, emissions standards and powerful kettles will probably rank close to the bottom of a post-Brexit priority list and, in the short run, it is unlikely that there will be any sudden environmental shocks if we vote out. Taking a longer view, although the UK would likely be required to implement minimum environmental protections in order to trade with a residual EU (for example, the Emissions Trading Scheme Directive applies to Norway and Iceland as members of the EEA), the risk is that some of the more ambitious and progressive environmental protection solutions would not make it onto the domestic agenda.

Market turmoil

When a 1979 referendum produced a "leave" vote, it took Greenland nearly six years to reach agreement with the EU on the single issue of fishing rights; the exit was therefore delayed until 1985.The UK will have much larger issues to resolve. Pending clarity of the UK position, insurers are likely to respond with a withdrawal of investments. We may also see a drop in foreign investment and a possible downgrading of insurers' credit rating, which will have an impact on liquidity and capital positions.

Regulatory implications

Passporting

The EU passporting regime allows UK insurers to write insurance on a cross-border basis without the need for further authorisation or additional local branches. This means that UK firms are not required to deposit additional funds to meet liabilities in other EU jurisdictions, or to report to other EU supervisors. A Brexit will therefore have an adverse impact on insurers that make use of these passporting arrangements. Local law often dictates that a risk can only be underwritten by an EEA authorised insurer or with the benefit of an EU passport. 

Regulatory regime

The blanket EU governance regime comes at a price and the UK insurance market may benefit from an improved and flexible national regulatory landscape. There is scope for the UK to set its own level of regulation, “rather than being shackled to an outdated ‘one-size-fits-all’ model”. Lighter regulatory burdens may also increase innovation - a cornerstone of the London market - and provide better access to emerging markets.

Emerging competition

The UK is home to the world’s largest specialist insurance and reinsurance centre, Lloyd’s of London. The 300-year old insurance hub controls £60 billion of gross written premium. At its doorstep is the world’s largest insurance market, which has a 35% share of the global market. The UK offers the best of all words in terms of access to both the London market and the single market. A key part of an emerging market insurer’s diversification strategy is through London and Lloyd’s. This perspective could dramatically change if the UK leaves the EU.  As business opportunities in the UK subside, we can expect the emergence of significant competition from other insurance centres around the world.

Conclusion

Looking back to the 1975 referendum, 67% of voters backed the UK’s continued membership with the EU. Recent polls paint a very different picture. A Brexit is a very real possibility, and given the insurance market’s extensive relationship with its European neighbours, the implications are likely to be far reaching. 

Will the cost of what I buy go up after Brexit?

This depends on a large number of factors but the consensus seems to be that prices will increase immediately after Brexit, as businesses react to greater uncertainty by increasing their profit margins and passing on uplifts in the cost of shipping, duties, red tape and border delays to consumers. Exiting the EU would also almost certainly lead to a fall in the value of the pound which is expected to have an adverse effect on prices. A report by ParcelHero ('Delivering Brexit: The True Cost of Leaving the EU') indicates that a typical £150 purchase from the EU would cost Brits around £195: an increase of £45 or 30%.

Ok, so that's the short term. Will prices go down again?

Potentially; but perhaps not for a while. One theory is that, after an initial hike, prices may well fall back one or two years after Brexit as the UK reaches preferential trade/tariff arrangements with cheaper export markets outside of the EU, such as China, Brazil, Russia and India, through the World Trade Organisation. Of course, it is difficult to predict what the net effect may be as trade/tariff arrangements would need to be negotiated on a country-by-country basis, but it is hoped that the UK could reduce tariffs to below EU levels.  VAT, already one of the lowest in Europe, is also predicted to stay the same, meaning that we would continue to enjoy zero rates for certain items such as food, children's clothes and newspapers.

How about the cost of delivery from the EU?

On a current assessment, this seems likely to rise. ParcelHero has predicted that transport costs will increase as the UK becomes a less competitive market for international couriers and global carriers impose new 'customs clearance' charges - typically around £15.  However, much will depend on the extent to which retailers are willing to absorb some of these costs.

Are my consumer rights still protected?

Yes. Consumer rights in the UK were established before we joined the EU and are enshrined in legislation and through case law. Our existing system now includes some EU-inspired rights but is likely to remain the same, unless Parliament decides to repeal or change the law. This means that you would still be entitled to a refund if the goods you bought turned out to be unfit for purpose, for example. All UK-based manufacturers who supply EU countries would still need to comply with any new EU standards so we would be protected by these anyway.

One grey area is Europe-wide protections such as fixed mobile roaming tariffs; could this really be our last summer of envy-inducing social media snaps? It has been predicted that consumers would probably lose out on benefits such as Europe-wide mobile tariffs, at least in the short term. This recently introduced EU law banning roaming fees would no longer benefit Brits after Brexit and caps would therefore be removed.

Trade Agreements

The first obstacle for the UK Government post-Brexit would be to agree a tariff-free trade agreement for goods and services. UK trade standards are already in line with EU standards, so agreeing a transition would seemingly be straightforward. The main pitfall with this avenue would be the short intermediate period between a Leave vote and when any deal is agreed – Boris' so-called 'Nike tick' spell. Any agreement would have to tackle myriad details, for example rules of origin to prevent Britain being used as a backdoor by other nations to access the European market.

The second potential obstacle would be agreeing a way of trading with EU states without having to fully accede to the single market – an aspect which is key to the Brexitiers, whose arguments are underpinned by critiquing the single market's detrimental impact on national sovereignty and control of our borders. EU regulations would still apply to goods and services being sold into Europe, and Europe could potentially invoke tariffs on goods which they believe are undercutting EU prices or standards. The likelihood of this actually happening however is uncertain. The CBI (strongly in support of remaining) commissioned a report by PwC to analyse the impact of Brexit. While that report suggested short-term disruption, it concluded that, over a 15 year period, there would only be a 2-3% differential in impact on GDP as a result of Brexit.

Services

The issue of services will also be critical for the UK economy which is heavily reliant on this sector.  The Government will likely try to set up bilateral deals for those areas where agreement has already been struck, such as in digital services. If, however, Eastern European nations are hit by stricter British immigration rules, for example, they could be in a position to block such deals.

Passporting

The question of 'passporting' in relation to financial markets is also vital. The UK would have to quickly establish a means of being permitted to passport its services into the continent, notwithstanding its removal from the EU. This is of course already possible for some non-EU nations, and any such agreements would likely be replicated for an independent UK.

Conclusion

The UK's relationship with the EU forms the basis of the UK's regulatory framework for financial services, mainly through a myriad of ever harmonising directives, such as MiFID II. There are three potential outcomes of a Brexit which could replace the current framework:

1. Membership of the European Economic Area (EEA), allowing full access to the single market but requiring general compliance with EU legislation and principles.

    

2. Membership of the European Free Trade Association (EFTA), consisting of bilateral agreements granting access to the single market on a sector by sector basis in return for compliance with sector-specific EU legislation.

    

3. Reliance on current membership of the World Trade Organisation (WTO) and unilateral treaties, meaning no access to the single market and compliance with EU and national regulations unless specifically negotiated.

UK regulation of financial services

Despite many rules being sourced in EU law, the regulation of financial services is broadly   unlikely to change significantly for a number of reasons.

Firstly, the FCA and PRA have been influential in the design of key directives such as Solvency II and will be slow to reject rules they helped shape to improve regulation following the financial crash. Secondly, the respective roles of the FCA and PRA constitute a UK-imposed high watermark of "twin peaks" regulation, which is unlikely to be weakened by unravelling current rules. Thirdly, the UK will be keen to maintain regulatory equivalence with EU member states so that UK firms can maintain access to the single market in financial services (outcomes 1 and 2 above would require this).

Finally, some rules embody continuing obligations outside of the EU, such as the EMIR, which implements the G20's commitment to reform the derivatives market in 2009.

It is possible that some rules, such as the AIFMD, could be reduced to ease the burden on those dealing in lower risk alternative investments. However, the regulatory appetite for this is unclear and it is unlikely to be high priority in the immediate aftermath of a Brexit.

EU regulation of UK financial services

Currently, there is no EU-specific regulation of UK financial services as EU "passporting" rules allow providers access to the whole of the single market by relying solely on UK authorisation. Loss of this regulatory freedom would be felt keenly by the full spectrum of banks, building societies, insurers, brokers/intermediaries, fund managers, investment firms, advisers and payment service providers.

Many EU and non-EU financial firms currently headquarter their operations in London and have been vocal about leaving in the event of losing their passporting rights. London is also the largest centre for financial services in the EU. 2,000 UK firms passport their services and their activities constitute 75% of all MiFID passported services into the EEA.

It is likely that the implications for EU consumers as well as the UK economy would motivate both the UK and the EU to maintain single market access for UK financial services. If not, the exact rules imposed by EU regulation of UK financial services will depend on which of the outcomes detailed above the UK is able to achieve in the wider post-Brexit negotiations.

What is defined as corruption in China?

An Interpretation was issued setting out the standards and penalties of bribery crimes in accordance with the law of China. According to the Interpretation, there are three categories of bribes: 

1. Least serious case 

The 'least serious case' is where a bribe is of more than RMB 10,000 (GBP 1,000). In these circumstances, conviction will give rise to a short-term detention or imprisonment of less than five years. 

2. Serious case 

A 'serious case' is where either:

• the bribe is between RMB 100,000 to RMB 200,000 (GBP 10,600 to GBP 21,200) and is made in any of the following circumstances: offered to more than three people; offered to various public officials; and/or where the bribe comes from illegal income; or
• the bribe is between RMB 200,000 and RMB 1 million (GBP 21,200 to GBP 106,000)

Punishment entails a fixed-term imprisonment of five to ten years. 

3. Very serious case 

A 'very serious case' is where the bribe is between RMB 500,000 to RMB 1 million (GBP 53,100 to GBP 106,000) under the circumstances described in the first bullet point above or of more than RMB 1 million (GBP 106,000). Punishment may be a fixed-term imprisonment of not less than ten years or at the higher end of the scale, life imprisonment. 

According to Xinhua News Agency, the Chinese Communist Party also reportedly banned bureaucrats from engaging in 'sinful activities'. Such activities include extravagant eating and drinking, nepotism, adultery and, rather interestingly, golf. 

The crackdown evidenced in Macau and Hong Kong 

In Macau, the campaign has resulted in a plunge in the gaming market, reportedly caused by a reduction in gambling by Chinese officials. In Hong Kong, there has been a fall in the number of Chinese visitors making expensive purchases, as officials are now fearful of being seen to splurge on luxury goods. 

Famously known as the 'Las Vegas of the East', Macau is the only (special administrative) region in China where casinos are legal – there is not one single casino in mainland China or Hong Kong. 

Prior to the crackdown, the casino industry in Macau enjoyed a period of significant growth (it first outstripped Las Vegas in 2007 by a staggering USD $3.51 billion). It is widely considered that this growth was supported by corrupt Chinese officials who flocked to Macau to gamble and/or to launder funds out of the country.

Macau's gaming revenue has, however, fallen steeply in recent years. The significant decline suggests that the measures implemented by President Xi have been effective, not least from restraining RMB being transferred out of the country by illegal means. 

In Hong Kong, the measure of the campaign is visible through the reduced high-profile visits of mainlanders and their spending on extravagant items such as cognac, watches and expensive handbags. Research has revealed that sales in the retail industry plunged 13.6% in the first two months of 2016 – the biggest slump since 1999; which is attributed to a drop in 13% of visitors to Hong Kong during the same period. 

The future 

Four years on, it appears that President Xi’s campaign is successful and thriving. There is no sign of the campaign slowing down – quite the contrary, it is showing its prominence throughout all provinces in China and continuing to crack down on officials of the highest kind. Cities heavily reliant on China such as Macau and Hong Kong are also feeling the effectiveness of the campaign and may wish to divert their attention elsewhere to avoid the slump continuing.

"If supermarkets ran HFT programmes, the average household could complete its shopping for a lifetime in under a second."

HFT

 On 19 June 1815 Nathan Mayer Rothschild used the fastest horses to carry news from the battle of Waterloo so that he could react first in the stock market. Modern HFT is based on similar concepts but instead of horses, firms use the fastest computers, fibre optic cables and microwave towers to edge out competition through speed.

However with great power comes great responsibility. This new speed has enabled new forms of unfairness. For example, latency arbitrage and event arbitrage, which involve exploiting the fact that one can react first to news events and momentary differences between market prices. You can plunge deeper down the rabbit hole and find compelling arguments that HFT firms can exploit computer signals between markets and exchanges, enabling them to get wind of a large institutional order and race to buy the remaining shares before the initial offer signal arrives. HFT firms could then sell that offer for a higher price and a profit (front running). Arguably, this and other methods are damaging to institutional investors such as pension funds. On the other hand, HFT advocates will often retort that HFT reduces trading costs and spread size. This moral merry-go-round aside, my view is that the more troubling symptom is HFT's link to volatility and liquidity. 

Volatility and Liquidity

To put in the fastest trades, HFT firms use computer algorithms - programs that react to information in designated ways, i.e. if the price of the dollar falls buy euros. They operate on staggering scales with pages of complex code. However, these algorithms can have exploitable impacts on markets. For example take momentum ignition. If you fire 100,000 buy orders and cancel them before they are fulfilled (quote stuffing) it might move the price of a stock up because of the noise in the market - the noise being mistaken for actual buying and selling activity. You can have the same effect by selling to yourself (an illegal activity called wash trading), profiting on the artificial rise in price. This and large volumes of small orders (used as a financial sonar, pinging for information) have had significant impacts for liquidity.

As many HFT firms are under no obligation to provide liquidity constantly, it means that in times of market stress liquidity dries up. In effect this liquidity source is not there when needed most. Arguably this also increases volatility, as the market lows are made lower. Imagine an auction house where you are trying to sell. If 60 percent of the room leave just before you sell (i.e. times of market stress), you're left with an empty auction which could have been filled with buyers, but it is too late.

 _{All credit and many thanks to E. Hunsader at Nanex LLC [16/06/2014]}

_{18 minute snapshot - The Charles Schwab Corporation (market cap $33 billion) loses 4.6% ($1.5 billion) in less than 1 second. Notice the spike in trade volume precisely as the shares plummet in value.}

The Flash Crash

At the 75th millisecond of the 44th second at 2:42pm on the 6th of May 2010 a starburst of orders exploded onto US markets. The Dow Jones began to fall, and fall fast. More than 1000 points down, one trillion dollars had been wiped off markets (an amount equal to the net worth of twenty Mark Zuckerbergs). It was Armageddon. Apple and Sotheby's shares were trading at $100,000 a share, from $250 and $35. CenterPoint Energy and Accenture were trading at 5 cents from $13 and $35. Then slowly markets recovered and the world breathed a collective sigh of relief.

This was the infamous 'Flash Crash'. It was over in 36 minutes but the fallout remains. Opinion is still divided as to the cause, but indisputably HFT had a hand. Arguably it was the main cause - HFT algorithms trading with each other at impossibly fast speeds, driving prices berserk.

Velocity and Market Structure

 With the extreme market turbulence in Q1 2016, finding a clear culprit shouldn’t be challenging. Especially given the rise in volatility rates, a rise with peaks matching 2008, when the world was staring over the edge of the cliff post-Lehman bros. I would suggest that the climate of macroeconomic fear that shaped Q1 2016 had such startling market impact because of the velocity gained through the speed and frequency of modern trading. Take as an example the pound dropping to a seven year low after Boris Johnson announced his support for the Brexit "no" campaign, it seems there is an obvious disparity between events and their impacts.

Yale Professor C.Perrow suggested in Normal Accident Theory that in complex tightly coupled systems accidents are inevitable. Modern markets are the most tightly coupled and complicated in history and with the rise of HFT we must all confront a hard truth - that with the speeds we are talking about, the next flash crash may have crippled markets before we can even blink.

No more would viewers be blocked from logging into iPlayer when attempting to catch-up on EastEnders while on holiday.  No more would the diehard English football fan be unable to log in to SkyGo in late August to see their favourite team play their first game of a new season.  No more would families be able to socialise with teenagers on holiday – teenagers who spend the rest of the year binge watching the Walking Dead/ Game of Thrones rather than spending quality time with the family.  

Together with a number of other changes, the easing of the geo-blocking restrictions was aimed at dragging the digital market into the 21st Century.  For a review of the wider impact of the proposals for a Digital Single Market (DSM) in which the UK participates, see RPC's IP Hub blog post here.  A key aim of the DSM is to harness positive change by improving access to digital goods and services – the Government proposes that the changes would make life easier for the consumer and build trust in the market (see here).

But what then would the repercussions be for digital content junkies if the UK votes to leave the EU on 23 June 2016?  Could the UK still find a way to be a part of the DSM and benefit from the EU legislation removing geo-blocking? Assuming that the UK votes 'leave', the answer depends on the way in which the UK exits the EU and the form of the relationship that may exist going forward.  

Potential post-Brexit relationships

 If the UK were to retain its subscription to EU laws (in a similar way to Norway's EEA arrangement) it might be afforded the ability to pick and choose which laws it subscribes to.  As a result, the UK might still be able to participate in the DSM and consumers of digital content would be able to sleep easy.  In truth the level of monetary contribution to the EU made by Norway, and the number of EU programmes in which it participates as a result, means that a similar model for the UK is unlikely to appeal to those voters who support the 'leave' campaign.  

Switzerland's relationship with the EU is unique – Switzerland enters into a number of bi-lateral accords (in contrast to agreements signed up to by all the Member States).  These accords or agreements make a large chunk of EU law applicable to Switzerland. If it was possible to replicate this style of participation then the hopes of participating in the DSM are greatly improved. In this context the UK would firstly have to decide which sectors or areas of EU law it wanted to subscribe to and secondly reach an agreement with the EU to enter into such treaties.  Given the time and uncertain nature of this task it would leave the UK's participation in the DSM in postponement but not outright impossible.

Conclusion

 Given the complexities and time implications associated with the UK leaving the EU, the public have yet to be presented with a method for consumers to receive the benefits of the DSM.  

Although to vote 'leave' will maintain the status quo for consumers receiving the benefit of the DSM (i.e. they won't miss what they don't yet have), it could be a useful tool for David Cameron to create a positive campaign for 'stay'.  Much of the anti-Brexit campaign is focused on the negative changes Britain would face if it left the EU with narrow issues being discussed at a high level.  Perhaps this is an opportunity for both sides to debate wider more day-to-day issues affecting consumers.

The Senior Managers Regime

The implementation of the SMR, which came into force in March 2016, provides the most compelling evidence for such an approach being adopted.

The SMR will place responsibility on senior managers (essentially, executive and non-executive board members) in banks and other institutions to ensure that the employees they supervise abide by the rules. The SMR also requires senior managers to sign a Statement of Responsibilities setting out the responsibilities of that particular senior manager therefore making it easier for the FCA to bring enforcement action against them.

Ultimately, senior managers will be more accountable for the action of employees under their purview. This should incentivise senior managers to ensure that the culture that they are implementing is appropriate and provides sufficient safeguards for retail consumers.

Certification Regime and new Conduct Rules

The Certification Regime (the CR) and new Conduct Rules (the NCR) came into force in March 2016. The CR requires individuals who perform certain functions to be certified by their employer as fit and proper to carry out the certified functions. The NCR is a new framework of behavioral standards in which individual conduct will be judged. Under the NCR, both senior managers and certified persons may face disciplinary action by the FCA or PRA.

This provides the FCA and PRA with far greater powers to discipline a larger number of individuals, increasing individual accountability. This further indicates a subtle change of focus from banks to individual bankers.

Conclusion

All in all, it is clear that there has been a change of approach to banks' regulation. It will be interesting to see how this develops with Andrew Bailey at the helm of the FCA. Mr Bailey has already distanced himself from Martin Wheatley by saying that he won't shoot first and ask questions later, although it remains to be seen what his approach will be.

Whilst there are indications that the banker bashing era of yesteryear is coming to an end, it is possible that what was known as banker bashing was actually bank bashing and the true era of banker bashing is only just beginning. If this is the case, then we may be about to see a far more effective way to bash the banker.

However, is this trend on the verge of change? UBS has estimated property prices to drop as much as 30% by the end of 2017. As at 11 February 2016, the Centa City Leading Index (reflecting the price level of 100 of Hong Kong's major residential estates) shows a month-on-month drop of 2.86%.

Increase in supply of land

A drop is likely for a number of reasons.  The insufficient supply of land has been a cause of the soaring prices, but it appears that supply is likely to increase. The Government is eager to explore sites for residential developments and has considered transforming country parks into residential sites. The Hong Kong Property Review 2015 shows that over 20,000 flats will be supplied in each of the next 3 years, a remarkable increase from the predicted 13,290 flats to be supplied in 2015.

Ongoing cooling measures

Cooling measures introduced by the Government have been effective in stabilising market prices. The various stamp duties and the maximum loan-to-value ratio of 60% for self-use residential properties under HK$10m  in relation to mortgages will likely stay in force until property prices drop to a level deemed reasonable by the Government.

Gradual interest rate hike

Further to the increase of the Hong Kong base rate to 0.75%, quarterly interest rate hikes are expected, which will push up the costs of taking out a mortgage, further deterring purchases and driving prices down.

Low rental value

The discrepancy between increasing property values and slowdown in rental yield also renders the residential property market a less attractive option to investors. While the house price index in Hong Kong rose by 274.2% between 2004 and April 2015, the rental index only went up by 122.2% over the same period, providing landlords with a mediocre yield of 2.2% – 2.9%.

Slowdown of economy

Finally, Hong Kong's economy has been weakened by China's economic slowdown. The significant decline of the retail sector as a result of the diminishing number of tourists from mainland China (who have been pivotal to growth of the retail sector in the past decade), has led to a series of lay-offs in the luxury retail sector and an increase in unemployment. This, and the chain effect caused to other Hong Kong business sectors, has weakened Hong Kongers' spending power and created poor market sentiment.

So will prices drop drastically? Not necessarily. Despite the economic slowdown, some Hong Kongers have already saved up for their first purchase but have been waiting for several years to 'strike' at a more reasonable price. The demand for residential properties is also partly fuelled by their buying behaviour – many consider it the ultimate goal to own a residential property. Last but not least, it is important to note that we are not currently experiencing a major economic crisis. Historically, drastic drops in price have been linked with a major external economic crisis such as the US stock market crash in 1987, China's monetary policy tightening in 1994, the Asia financial crisis in 1997, the SARS epidemic in 2003 and the global financial crisis in 2008. If no such major crisis occurs, a drastic drop is unlikely.

The drop should not be sudden either. The expected interest rate rise and the slowdown of the Hong Kong and China economy are likely to be gradual. Taking these factors into account and bearing in mind the demand for residential properties, Hong Kongers may be in for a gradual drop in price over the next 3 years. 

Above: Pulling out all the document references in a report can be accomplished in as little as four lines of code, rather than hours of copying and pasting.

Image attribution.

In years gone by the Super Bowl has largely flown under the radar in the UK. This is despite the fact that rights to show this event are amongst the most expensive in world sport, costing a reported $300m last year, with 30-second TV advertising slots during the event being sold at up to $4.5m. Indeed in 2007 the NFL was only the 18th most watched sport on SKY.

Therefore it is unsurprising that in 2007, the NFL made decided to target the UK's lucrative and largely untapped market. The organisation started an international series in London, which saw two teams travelling to Wembley to play an NFL game. This coincided with the NFL making an announcement that they expected London to have its own NFL Franchise by the year 2021.

Since that point the NFL's popularity has grown year on year in the UK. The international series has now expanded from one game a year to three, with each game selling out almost immediately. American Football is now up to 6th in the SKY rankings and participation over the same period has increased by an average of 15% year on year.  The NFL now has a significant and growing fan base in the UK – reported to be more than 13m, including 2.8m avid fans. This represents an increase of 30% in the last two years.    

This increased following, together with the ambitious plans of NFL commissioner Roger Goodell to double the sport’s revenues to $25bn (about £16bn) by 2027, has made the case for a UK-based franchise even more compelling. Indeed, NFL spokesman Mark Waller confirmed last month that the UK is "on track" to have its own NFL franchise in the next six years. This represents the clearest indication yet that the UK is the sporting organisation's number one priority for expansion.

A London franchise is not just an opportunity for the NFL to expand its international reach: it will also have far reaching, positive economic impacts for the UK. A 2014 NFL-backed Deloitte report suggested that a team could generate a direct annual economic impact of £102m from the eight home games a year, including over £70m in spectator spending. These figures are based on a conservative estimate of only 600,000 fans attending the games. In addition, the report suggested that it could have a wider impact on the UK economy of as much as £96m.

Given the above, it is no surprise that last year Chancellor George Osborne decreed that "anything the government can do to make this happen we will do because I think it would be a huge boost to London". He went on to say that a London expansion would "cement London as a global sporting capital as well as a global financial and business and cultural capital".

The practical changes of having a team situated across the Atlantic and a five to eight hour time difference is worrying many supporters of the idea. Further, a franchise in London will also present significant legal challenges including from both a tax and immigration perspective. These are just a few of the myriad of practical and legal hurdles facing any potential London franchise  It remains to be seen how the NFL will go about negotiating  these hurdles but with willingness from both sides none of these challenges should prove insurmountable. This, however, is probably a discussion best left for another day and in the meantime perhaps the best thing to do is grab a beer and a buffalo wing and join Boris in front of the game!

With designers like Hindmarch, quirky collaborations work because of the very fact that they are a combination of two things you wouldn't normally associate with each other – a high-end designer piece and a high street logo more easily identifiable with a trip to the supermarket than a 4-figure price tag. It is this juxtaposition between the everyday and the designer's luxury craftsmanship which makes for novelty, sought-after pieces.  The question is, could we one day see ‘brand borrowing’ translate into professional services?

On a very small scale we see a form of brand borrowing at professional services firms already; how many of these firms choose to say something about their brand through pieces of art, quotations and other such work in their office or online presence.  But could we see professional services firms forming more deliberate or unusual brand borrowing collaborations? A firm which has taken years to refine a more serious brand image may be less receptive to unexpected brand mixing than the ever-changing fashion world. Another obvious limitation is that the firms’ end product - say, a piece of legal advice or industry update - isn’t conducive to branding in the same way that a fashion item is. And so it is not as easy to imagine potential tie-ups; legal update on the back of your cereal box, anyone?

One conceivable option, a subtle form of brand borrowing being deployed already in some sectors, would be for professional services firms to borrow brands in the way they market or present their services, such as advertising. Recent high profile campaigns by Santander, Virgin and Lloyds have featured adverts which capture the brand power of a famous personality or music artist. Like Hindmarsh & Co’s brand borrowing, the key is doing this in an unexpected way (think Usain Bolt sporting a Bransen-esque goatee) - which is where some firms may be nervous.     

However, as professional services firms constantly seek to differentiate themselves and to evolve with their clients and the rest of the business world, it may be that they need to look at more playful and inventive ways of marketing their brand. Borrowing someone else's could just be the answer. 

The rate is generally only applicable to the most creditworthy institutions and applies to balances held at the Federal Reserve - called federal funds. In order to support the economy after the financial crash, the rate has persisted at a near-zero level. In what some analysts have described as a "baby step" towards normality, the Fed has doubled the interest rate by 0.25% to 0.5%.

With the financial hangover wearing off following the collapse of the housing and banking sectors between 2007-09, the Fed is clearly signalling that the US economy is now strong enough to weather an interest rate hike. Unemployment is at 5% (down from its peak of 10% in 2009) and has reached the point at which wages are starting to rise rapidly and push up inflation.

The ripple effect…

The federal funds rate is viewed as the base rate for all other interest rates in the US and sets a benchmark for the level of credit and borrowing costs. The higher the federal funds rate, the more expensive it is to borrow money, which is likely to lower the amount of money in circulation. The effects of a rate hike are transmitted through to banks and consumers. The aim is to cool down the economy and control inflation to avoid a scenario in which demand (i.e. available money) exceeds the supply of goods and services.

A rate rise has a wide and varied impact. Although the Fed’s change is unlikely to have immediate impact on longer-term rates, the rate has a knock-on effect to rates paid by firms and households. Businesses can expect a net increase in costs as borrowing money will become more expensive as will paying off debts already incurred. The change is also likely to be transmitted to consumers who borrow money from banks. These consumers can expect changes to interest rates on products such as car loans, credit cards and mortgages.

Although the link is more tenuous, there is also a broad interaction with the stock market. Businesses need to borrow money from banks to run and expand operations. Because of the higher rates of interest on loans, companies may borrow less, slowing down their growth. Businesses are also affected by the behaviour of individuals, who may have less discretionary income to spend. Higher debt expenses and decreased revenue from customers will be reflected in a lower price of the company’s stock.

What about the UK?

Historically, UK interest rates have moved in tandem with the US market interest rates. Although there is no direct link between the UK and US interest rates, there exists an expectation that the Bank of England will be the next central bank to hike rates. The current UK economy appears to support this expectation: the UK was the fastest growing economy in the G7 last year and its economy has been growing for eleven consecutive quarters. The UK deficit is down and the economy has experienced record high employment.

Despite this, risks in the UK economy remain. Recent economic growth figures released by the Office for National Statistics (“ONS”) have revised Britain’s growth downwards, suggesting that the recovery was losing momentum. In particular, the ONS cited weakness in the key services sector. Other commentators have noted slowing wage growth and continued low inflation. This is the fourth time in the last seven quarters where the ONS overestimated the strength of the economy.

Mark Carney, the Governor of the Bank of England, recently said that the Fed’s decision was not decisive and that any rates rise would be “limited and gradual.” Most economists do not expect any increase in the UK interest rate until the second half of the year, adding that any rates rise would only be a marginal 0.5% to 1% over 2016 as a whole. It remains to be seen whether the federal funds rate hike will have any significant impact on UK rates.

Looking forward…

The immediate reaction to the rate hike was one of relief and world markets have reacted positively. The Fed has hinted towards a gradual upwards trend, avoiding the need for more substantial (and potentially economically damaging) rises in rates later on. Further incremental increases in the federal funds rate are expected later in 2016.

First, a bit of context with regards to the vote itself. There are certain default rules that apply to referenda, and in particular UK referenda. Chief among them is that the voting public are significantly more inclined to vote for the status quo as opposed to change. Why so? One reason could be the fear of uncertainty prevailing over the case for change. 

Is this ostensible position of voting for uncertainty actually the case, however? Would remaining in the EU represent the most certain position and present fewer unknowns? Arguably the reverse is true. The EU is yet to emerge from the monetary crisis that has rendered a number of Member States politically emasculated and in a seemingly perennial state of economic crisis. How will the EU solve the inherent defect of aligning monetary union (and indeed political union) with fiscal union? In the wake of the initial sovereign debt crisis in 2009, EU officials cried out that more Europe and not less Europe was the answer. "Ever closer Union" as was enshrined in the Treaty of Rome remains the modus operandi for the EU. Do we know what this will actually entail? 

It's clear that in the EU referendum, the Out campaign has an uphill struggle on its hands in convincing the public that making this 'leap into the dark' will pay dividends. Much like the Better Together campaigners and the Tories in their respective votes, the Pro-EU campaigners will argue against retreating from the safety of the status quo and accentuate the hazards of deviating from the well-trodden path. If the In campaigners are labelled as fear-mongers and bloodless accountants, they should know they are on to a winner… 

In most places, most of the time, democratic politics is the act of selecting the lesser of two evils. This is doubly true in Britain, with its aversion to ideology. If the most zealous pro-Europeans do not see this, it is because their cause has become a species of religion, not politics. They believe Britons are only Eurosceptic because they read lurid newspapers and listen to elitist politicians. 

The real reason for why Britain is Eurosceptic is because its experience of independent nationhood was, for the most part, benign. The fact is that the UK's broader history in conjunction with the continent is certainly not one of union. Up until the late nineteenth century, the concept of being politically bound to Europe would have been completely absurd if not anathema. In the grand scheme of the UK's history, European union is very much a modern phenomenon. Of course, two intervening World Wars galvanised the collective will to forge a Union of Member States. Some elements of 'big business' are understandably nervous over the prospect of a 'Brexit'. Not least because there is clearly no 'ideal' form of exit which will leave economic ties to the single market neatly intact. The ideal form of exit, one which preserves the UK’s market access but exempts it from market rules, will never be permitted by the EU. 

Negotiation over reform was likewise doomed from the outset. The Eurosceptics will argue that whatever deal is brought back does not go far enough and Europhiles will argue that membership is worthwhile even with no reform. 

What then will be the outcome?

The most likely outcome is that prudence will prevail. We matter, but not enough to get exactly the kind of EU we want. The best reason to stay in the EU may seemingly be the absence of a superior alternative. If the UK votes to leave, however unlikely that is, it will not revert back to the ideology of 'separate spheres' where it would play off its interests across the Atlantic, in Europe and throughout the Commonwealth in equal measure. Likewise, any deal bargained for to regain access to the Single Market will inevitably involve acquiescing to some European regulation which will, over time, thicken and consume its 'independence' once again. If the UK votes to remain in, nothing changes, except perhaps the threat that the vote is perceived as some form of affirmation of the European project and that our politicians read the same as a green light for even deeper European integration. 

image attribution

Established in 1979, China's one child policy was introduced by the Communist Party amid fears of the impact of exponential population growth and food shortages as China's population was growing by 1.9% annually. Couples were incentivised to have only one child with education, childcare and healthcare benefits, with those contravening the rules subject to fines (up to ten times a family's annual income) and forced abortions. Second children born in violation of the one child policy were denied a residence permit from the government, leaving them without an official identity.

With China now experiencing an economic slowdown it seems that the policy has proved too effective as the country experiences a rapidly ageing population and a scarcity of workers. China now has the world's largest ageing population, and it is estimated that by 2050 there will be 440 million over-60s. The working population (those aged between 16 and 59) has been falling since 2012 and this, coupled with increasing unemployment and an economic slowdown, has the government worried. It is estimated that by 2030, the ratio of taxpayers to pensioners will be just two to one. Less than a third of the workforce had a basic pension in 2013; this is problematic in light of the fact that women in China usually retire at 55 and men at 66, and there is an average life expectancy of 76.

Unfortunately for China, it is unlikely that this change in policy will lead to the baby boom that the country desperately needs. The policy had already been relaxed in recent years on a piecemeal basis; it is estimated that in the last 10 years only one third of the population has been limited to one child. Ethnic minorities were permitted to have more than one child, as were those whose first child was a girl or disabled. However, reactions to the relaxations have been lacklustre. Since 2013, citizens who had grown up as an only child were announced to be eligible to have two children, but of the 11 million eligible citizens only 1.5 million applied for the privilege and less than 0.5 million babies were born as a result.

The Chinese government is a victim of its own success; its propaganda was so effective that couples are now less inclined to have more than one child. Real estate is expensive, especially in urban areas, and childcare options are limited; nannies are unregulated and kindergartens do not cater for those under three years old. The cost of education is also cited by Chinese parents as a reason to have only one child. The culture of filial devotion in China means that a couple of working age often financially and emotionally supports four elderly parents alone, and a child. Adding a second child may be seen as stretching resources that little bit too much.

The changes should be seen as a step in the right direction for human rights rather than heralding a baby boom and a consequential boost to the economy. The impact, if any, on China's working population will not be felt for at least 16 years (and 9 months!) and this relaxation in policy is unlikely to bring about the demographic changes China needs. After all, it is a lot easier to enforce a one child policy than to encourage an increase in conception.

In truth, it can take months to produce a tight "on brand" social media campaign which adds value and emboldens the reputation of a business.  It involves teams debating and discussing what they think the campaign should be and what would be the most effective hashtag.  However, one second is all it takes to undo that hard work – a vocal employee, an ill-advised re-tweet, sharing something confidential, using an under-researched hashtag. The potential for a gaffe is forever present.  

One only has to look to the world of sport: emotional athletes in pressure cooker environments are often the subject of social media scrutiny.  Take, for example, Super Mario's racist meme (tweeted by Mario Balotelli); Richard Kilty's angry tweets around British Athletics – blaming others for a relay mistake and speaking out against foreign born British athletes; and Rio Ferdinand's re-tweet of a remark containing a racist term when referring to Ashley Cole.  The hard truth is that Average Joe's social media profile can go viral in just the same way as that of a celebrity – even if the profile in question is part of a professional network. Proof of this is Alexander Carter-Silk's personal LinkedIn interactions with Charlotte Proudman which made both individuals and their respective social media accounts the talk of London – perhaps something he didn't expect when he sent his initial message.  Clearly, the risk of public social media embarrassment is present in everyday life and in every company. 

The question to answer is what can companies do to address this risk and ensure that they get the Facebook thumbs up?

From a basic marketing perspective, every company ought to have a clear idea of what it wants its message to be.  Are you the one to watch for 2016?  Are you trying to be pioneering in your industry?  Are you the tried and tested service provider in this market?  Marketing 101: it is one thing to talk the talk but it will soon catch you out if you cannot walk the walk – social media interaction is the easiest way to show if there is a disconnect between brand communication and brand reality.

Nowadays every company should have a social media policy and, to be most effective, it should be split into two parts.  One part should allow the employee to understand what is appropriate for "work mode" and the other the employee to understand what is appropriate for "personal mode".  Both parts should provide for what a person can say about the company and its partners.  The policy should be regularly updated and easily accessible for employees – training employees on the consequences of poor decision making and refreshing understanding of what is and isn't acceptable is a must.  The social media policy that is in place now will not be sufficient for the social media space in five years' time.

The policy should not be about policing employees but communicating the trust that exists between employer and employee.  A small mistake ought not to lead to a large overreaction – panicking about what an interaction might do to the image of the company shows that you're not in control. Rather, a clear social media policy would allow the company to calmly assess how to respond from a PR perspective and, if necessary, would allow the company to distance itself from the gaffe and show that it has done what reasonably could be expected to train individuals on how to use social media.

Ultimately, social media is now engrained within society and in every industry.  If companies can engage employees and third parties with an understanding of how they approach social media interactions, the potential value to be gained from effective social media use is enormous.

In a letter to the FT in 2014 Kweku Adoboli, the infamous UBS rogue trader, made a statement which gives us an insight into his perspective on the matter: "no one in finance ever realises how close they are to the imaginary, transitory red line until they cross it and get smashed in the face by a million camera lenses". It is difficult to accept that, in an industry dominated by well-educated and highly motivated individuals, there is a lack of awareness as to the 'transitory red line' but, before we denounce Adoboli as another evil banker, let's look more closely at this assertion.

Forex and LIBOR rate-rigging are shining examples of the issues that have plagued the banking sector, and an analysis of the two seems a logical place to start.

Firstly, LIBOR and Forex were both unregulated benchmarks with no clear legal framework. The boundaries, in terms of acceptable conduct, were largely untested. For a number of traders, pushing these boundaries was commonplace. Those who pushed too far caught the attention of regulators. There were definite grey areas between the law and accepted City practice.

Secondly, most of the major banks were to some degree involved in the manipulation. The misconduct was widespread, to the point that some bankers may have felt the bank would be worse off if they did not partake in the cheating. Traders entered into a negative feedback system which was self-justifying because "everyone else was doing it".

Thirdly, the banking culture was to focus on profit margins above all else. Traders were incentivised on the basis of how much money they brought in. Those participating in the manipulation often felt they were doing a good job by exceeding their targets. The conduct which attracted huge bonuses and plaudits from colleagues became the misconduct that led to billions in regulatory fines. It is no coincidence that, at the end of October 2015, John McFarlane, the chairman of Barclays, attacked the bonus culture and argued that it encourages individuals to "cut corners".

Taking a step back, the transitory red line is rather more blurred than it first appears. Beyond benchmark fixing there are other examples – accountants who push the books until a company collapses, staff pressured into mis-selling financial products and financial inducements adjudged to be bribes.

The striking reality of these scenarios is that the misconduct of the individual is adjacent to their previously acceptable behaviour and, when regulators begin to investigate their conduct, it takes a substantial amount of time to ascertain the point at which the 'transitory red line' was crossed.

This reasoning does not excuse or validate malpractice in business but it goes a small way to identifying its root causes. A combination of profit-driven culture, a lack of legal clarity and the attitude that "everyone else is doing it" can foster an atmosphere which may encourage an individual, who is by no means a traditional crook, to drift onto the wrong side of the red line. Businesses should seek to promote a culture which prevents employees from blurring the lines between cheating and competing.

This will be the largest flotation in India since telecom group Bharti Infatel listed in 2012 and raised £500m.

IndiGo is the exceptional performer in a crowded – and troubled – Indian aviation market.  It is the only domestic carrier to have been consistently profitable since 2009.  In the past financial year, it made a record profit of Rs13bn (£130m) whilst its main competitors made large losses.

Jet Airways, for example, returned net losses of Rs41bn (£410m) and Rs21bn (£210m) for the fiscal years 2014 and 2015 respectively, despite carrying a quarter of India's air passengers.

SpiceJet was bailed out by its co-founder Ajay Singh earlier this year, whilst Kingfisher Airlines, once the country's second-largest airline, collapsed in 2012 owing debts totalling over £1.6bn to a variety of creditors.

The current combined debt burden across the industry is an estimated £13bn.

Perhaps the most significant difficulty facing Indian airlines is the enormous tax levied on jet fuel, which arguably is a result of a belief in India that air travel is a "luxury good" and an extravagance for the wealthy. Tax on jet fuel is not only high, but also varies hugely from state to state. The Centre for Asia Pacific Aviation (CAPA), an industry research group, reports taxes as high as 24%. Clearly this cuts into the profit margin of Indian airlines. CAPA has proposed a countrywide tax on fuel of 4%, to provide predictability in taxation which in turn will boost confidence in the sector and promote airline development. The government is yet to implement any such reform.

The second key difficulty affecting the industry is that Indian consumers are particularly price-conscious when purchasing air travel. This scrutiny should naturally lead to lower prices; however, competition in the Indian market is distorted by state-owned airline Air India, which undercuts rivals with slashed prices funded through government subsidies to maintain its 21% market share. 

In the midst of these challenges, how is one carrier bucking the trend to such an extent that it is seeking finance from the markets to expand even further?

Aditya Ghosh, president of InterGlobe Aviation, says the answer is simple. Only IndiGo, he argues, has stuck to the basics of the low-cost airline model. Rooted in keeping aircraft flying as much as possible it only operates one type of aircraft, emphasises quick turnarounds and provides only a no frills service. This model can be contrasted to ill-advised attempts by rivals to offer a combination of premium and economy services across a variety of aircraft types.

In October 2014 IndiGo ordered a record 250 A320neo aircraft from Airbus worth a collective £17bn. With greater fuel efficiency and lower maintenance costs, the new craft should aid IndiGo's continued expansion. The airline is choosing to finance the planes via short-term sale and leaseback arrangements, which have been successful for it in the past. Given that Airbus, a European consortium, generates around 100,000 jobs in the UK, any further investment in IndiGo’s fleet following the IPO could have a huge positive impact on the UK economy.

The success of the airline industry, and wider aviation industry, is vital for India's future, and IndiGo cannot remain the only success story. Other transport options are not sufficient - roads are chaotic, trains are slow and overcrowded. To maintain India's economic growth rate (approximately 7%) the idea of air travel as a luxury should be consigned to history and aviation should be recognised as an economic enabler; a tool to connect a vast country. A sensible first step would be for the government to follow CAPA's fuel taxation advice. Equally, struggling commercial carriers should learn from the back-to-basics business model of IndiGo in order to avoid the same fate as Kingfisher Airlines.

I recently attended our department drinks and got talking to a few senior members of the team about the perils of social networks.

As interesting as our conversation about Tinder was, I will perhaps leave that discussion for a different forum and focus on LinkedIn tips for now.

Although in no way prescriptive, below are some useful pointers for you to navigate through the minefield that has become professional social networking.

Small caveat, the following only apply to "Basic" account holders and not those with "Premium" subscriptions.

Anonymous due diligence

For those wishing to carry out stealthy stalking, or rather, due diligence on potential clients or contacts, the anonymous setting is a godsend. This enables you to look at someone's profile without the other being notified of who viewed them. The disadvantage is that in turn you will not be able to see who has viewed your profile.

If your curiosity outweighs this downside, this is how to change your settings:

• Cast your cursor over the small profile picture of you in the top right hand corner, which will reveal a list of options;
• Click on "Manage" by "Privacy and Settings";
• Click on "Select what others see when you've viewed their profile", which is the fourth option under "Profile"; and
• Select "You will be totally anonymous" and finally, "Save Changes". 

Keep your connections close and your enemies away from your connections

If you do not wish to share your connections:

• Cast your cursor over the small profile picture of you in the top right hand corner and click on "Manage" by "Privacy and Settings";
• Click on "Select who can see your connections" which is the sixth option under "Profile"; and
• Select "Only you" and "Save changes".

Remember: those who endorse you and any shared connections will still be visible. It is also useful to remember that if you disconnect someone, they will not be notified unless they try to access your profile and only public information is visible.

Your personal brand

A corporate buzzword often thrown around, but LinkedIn is useful for some good PR. If you or someone in your department writes a blog, click on "Share an update" on your home page and simply paste the link. This feature is your online voice to share your expertise and interests with your connections and help you build a positive reputation within your industry.

Attention to detail  

It may sound patronising but spelling or grammatical errors must be remedied as soon as possible, particularly on the "Summary" section of your profile and any updates you post.

You may not want your entire network being notified just because you edited a typo on your profile. Turn off this alert by going onto your profile and selecting "No" under "Notify your network" along the right hand column. Your connections will not be alerted to any profile changes that you make but this will not affect other updates that others receive when you, for example, share an article or like someone else's shared content.

The right amount of presence

Do nothing with your profile and you appear inactive. Post too many updates and you risk being "hidden" by others on their newsfeed. Once or twice a week appears to be the optimal amount to post an update. It is worth remembering that your "likes" will show up on newsfeeds too, which is an easy way to endorse a colleague's blog or achievement but remember, everything in moderation.

No game playing

General consensus is to accept people as soon as possible. This is not the time to play games familiar to those in the early stages of courtship. Send a personal, follow up message thanking them for the request and, if appropriate, inviting them to meet up.

Less is more

Be picky with connections. Work out your objectives on LinkedIn, whether it is keeping up with your industry or connecting with clients. It is acceptable to reject an invite if you do not know that person and do not wish to. Conversely, if you keep adding people you do not know and they mark you as spam, you risk LinkedIn freezing your account. Avoid this virtual naughty step by only sending out genuine invites.

Reorder your profile

The default setting is that your most recently attended university appears on your profile at the top of your page. You can change this by reordering the institutions you have listed under "Education" by casting your cursor over the left side of each entry until the box becomes shaded in grey. You can then drag and reorder each entry to control what people see first.

This is useful if connecting with alumni from university, especially for lawyers as listing the law school you attended may not help to distinguish you from others.   

Hopefully you will find the above useful as you navigate the pitfalls of mixing business with social networking. Good luck!

I have a particular interest in spreading this message; I am from Teesside and both my father and brother work at the Redcar plant. But the message shouldn't just come from those directly affected on Teesside. Although the job losses will obviously have the gravest impact on the North-East, where unemployment is at its highest rate (8.5%, 3% higher than the national rate), the closure will have a UK wide effect. The falling unemployment rate has been regarded as an economic success of the last year but this success, and indeed the economic recovery more generally, has been very unbalanced both in region and in sector. This problem will be intensified by the closure, particularly when one considers the potential indirect job losses that could hit contractors, suppliers and local businesses.

What of the effect on UK industry?

Despite steel's position as an essential commodity that underpins a lot of activity in other manufacturing processes and sectors, the UK steel industry as a whole is struggling. If things don't improve, the UK could find itself wholly, or at least heavily, reliant on imported steel. This is problematic as industry already only contributes to approximately 10% of GDP, whilst in comparison the services sector accounts for more than 75%. Services, particularly financial services, are predominantly London-based, meanwhile manufacturing and industry generally takes place outside of London and across the rest of the UK. Meaning a further decline in industry will cause the imbalance between sectors and regions to become even greater. The less diversified the UK economy is, the more unequal and divided the UK may become. If we are to avoid sector-specific or regional crises we must beware of putting all our eggs in one basket.

What can be done in response to the SOS?

Further developments suggest that it is already too late to keep the Redcar factory open as SSI UK has now gone into liquidation. The government insists that EU state aid rules prevent it from assisting and the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills has recently turned down an 'unviable' request for funding to keep the factory open . This is unsurprising given the extent of SSI UK's debts and the fact it has traded at a loss every year since 2011.

If it really is too late to keep the plant open now, mothballing rather than closure must be considered.  Mothballing would allow the plant to reopen when market conditions improve – this actually happened to the Redcar factory in 2012. There have been welcome reports that aid in the mothballing process may come from local British Businesses.  Calls have also been made for the government to assist with the cost of mothballing however the government insists it is prevented from doing so under the state aid rules. Those concerned about the cost of government assistance should consider the millions of pounds it will cost UK taxpayers to clean up the Redcar site following complete closure, not to mention the ongoing costs of the impact on the UK economy.

More generally, the government needs to address the underlying issues that led to the situation on Teesside. Granted, it cannot control market prices but it can challenge allegations of Chinese dumping.  Moreover, energy costs for industries within the UK are far above those experienced across the EU. This is something that must be addressed, not just for steelmakers but for UK industry as a whole.

And what of the thousands of skilled and semi-skilled workers soon to be without jobs? Indeed, the effects of the industrial decline are not only being felt on Teesside, with job cuts in other parts of the UK already this year, and there are more predicted to come.

Steps have been made to combat this; the government has announced an £80m support package  that includes funding for those affected by the Redcar closure to train at further education colleges or to start businesses. Much more needs to be done, however, to fully answer the SOS calls. Education is one thing, but good job opportunities are another.

So, when discussing possible overseas seats with a friend recently I was surprised when he ruled out Japan on the basis that he believed he would be unable to handle the hours. As a fellow City worker it was not as if he was used to the 9 to 5 lifestyle. I therefore felt the topic called for further investigation. 

Overwork in Japan is a national problem. There is even a term "Karashi" meaning death by overwork. Last year it is estimated 200 Japanese workers succumbed to heart attacks, strokes or cerebral haemorrhaging due to their working patterns. There is an ingrained culture of working extremely long hours and failure to do this often invites accusations of disloyalty. Over a fifth of the workforce works over 49 hours per week and spending 14 hours a day at work with few or no holidays is not considered extreme.

Holidays, like leaving at 5pm, are frowned upon in many Japanese workplaces. While workers in the UK rely on that much revered Christmas break and obligatory week in the summer sun, many Japanese workers struggle to take their minimum annual leave of 10 days. The more cynical among us may view that as working for free. There is a growing practice of working overtime for free "sah-bee-soo-zayn-gyo" or "service overtime".

Countless studies have in fact shown that working extremely long hours decreases productivity. Working late may illustrate your commitment to the work force, but it does not necessarily mean you are contributing more. The concept of "face time" is something which many Japanese workers take seriously. So while you may not actually have anything to do at 11pm, just being there is very important.

However, times are changing and many workplaces are now making a conscious effort to promote a work life balance. While in some countries an email and a few well-judged seminars may be enough to make a dent in the practice, in Japan more extreme measures are being employed. For example the Ministry for Health is set to introduce a ban on working after 10pm after switching off the lights failed to encourage employees to leave.

Some businesses are looking to go even further. Fast Retailing, the manufacturers of Uniqlo clothing, are looking to introduce a four hour day for employees who want a better work life balance.

The Government is also looking to effect change via a new bill making it mandatory for workers to take at least five days holiday a year, and employers will also be responsible for ensuring that their employees take their holidays. The law encourages more flexible working and taking time to spend with children during school holidays.  

So while a stint in the Japanese office may not currently be hugely appealing, with change afoot City workers may begin to consider that job in Tokyo.

As well as encouraging creativity, flexible working or fewer hours of work each week are likely to promote reduced work stress, higher quality output, reduced fatigue and a better ‘work-life balance’. In short, our traditional five day week might well be standing in the way of us reaching our full potential in the workplace.

The structure of the working week has pretty arbitrary origins. Philip Sopher’s 2014 article in The Atlantic suggests the current five day form can be attributed to influences including the setting aside of time for religious observance and even hangovers. Unlike the calendar year and month which are arguably based on natural cycles, the traditional working week is an entirely human creation.

So, does this mean it is in our power to change our working patterns? Theoretically: yes. However, although there are movements to introduce opportunities for non-traditional work patterns, the barriers to substantial adoption are significant. Beyond the practicalities of meeting the expectations of colleagues, clients or customers, the very way we think and talk about being busy may perpetuate traditional working patterns.

Being (or at least appearing) busy can be used by individuals to signal high social status and solicit the admiration of others. This reflects the fact that talent is one of the scarcest resources in advanced economies and being busy implies an individual’s skills are in high demand. An individual championing non-traditional working patterns could be perceived as less important or valuable than their peers.

Traditional working patterns are also entrenched by the way we think about time itself. Although professional services are perhaps an extreme example by billing for work in incremental blocks of time, Western culture uses the metaphor “time is money” to help structure our understanding of time. This is revealed by the use of words that relate to money to talk about time: “investing time”, “spending time” and “wasting time”. Time is not actually money but the conceptual equivalence of time to money means time not working may be experienced as wasteful.    

It sounds outlandish, but would things be different if time was characterised as a destructive force, with the emphasis that time “catches up”, “wears down” or even “destroys everything”? Are there ways of talking about time that reframe how people approach the time they pass at work? To truly get over time and challenge traditional working patterns (not to mention the billable hours approach of valuing output by number of hours spent on production) perhaps a first step is finding new words to think about and discuss time itself.

The most widely used example to explain the IoT is the connected fridge (so much so that it’s (apparently) become something of a running joke at tech conferences).  The idea is that this fridge, when properly connected to the IoT, could monitor its contents and automatically add food to a user’s online shopping account when it is running low.  It could even suggest recipes based on the ingredients you’ve got left, remotely set your connected oven to the correct temperature and talk you through the cooking process.

To a point, the IoT is already on the path to world domination– smartphones, wearable tech and connected homes are fast becoming commonplace – but the real boom is yet to come.  Gartner, the leading tech researcher, estimates that approximately 3.9 billion connected “things” were in use in 2014.  By 2020, this figure is expected to reach 25 billion.  However, there are a couple of hurdles standing in the way if the IoT is to fulfil its true potential.

The technology that powers the IoT is already very much in existence, and there is certainly no shortage of novel ideas for how to implement it. The first major challenge facing tech companies is to decide exactly how to capitalise on the IoT's enormous potential. Part of the problem is that the initial focus has centred on gimmicky gadgets rather than credible problem-solving technology.  What if, rather than merely counting your eggs or checking the date on your milk, the connected fridge could learn how to operate more efficiently by analysing data from other fridges in the vicinity? Or use collective machine intelligence to identify (and even solve) model-specific problems?

The issue may seem petty in reference to a refrigerator, but it does highlight the need to harness the potential of the IoT in the best possible way in order to ultimately wring from it as much tangible value as possible.  The IoT scales up far beyond domestic appliances – “smart cities” (featuring connected traffic signals, waste disposal plants, energy grids, etc.) are fast becoming a reality, and the potential rewards for industry are huge, if the IoT is developed in the right way.  The manufacturing industry, where the IoT is useful for organising machines, tools and people in order to maximise production and efficiency, is arguably leading the charge at the moment.  It is surely only a matter of time until people-based industries catch up, finding new ways to derive comparable value from connected offices.

The second major hurdle in the way of realising the true potential of the IoT is the double-threat of security and privacy.

Much of the media attention in this area has focused on the consequences of hackers taking control of our personal devices (e.g. keyless entry systems for cars and houses). However, the biggest threat is not by the hacking of personal devices but the hacking of back-end systems and the data flowing through them. The data generated by a single IoT device could contain a plethora of personal information (names, addresses, health information, and credit card details). This alone would be of limited interest to hackers, but usage patterns across thousands of devices, which can be developed using analytical tools, would be a much more valuable commodity.

New connected devices will collect more data about us than ever before, often without us knowing it, and businesses need to find ways of adequately collecting, storing, protecting and disposing of this data or risk facing a real erosion of trust from consumers. Security experts argue that not enough is being done at present. A study by HP-Fortify in 2014 found that a number of devices were riddled with “basic security flaws, such as weak passwords, unencrypted network services, insecure interfaces and cross-site scripting risks.” If we are going to invest fully in the IoT, it is absolutely fundamental that these potential issues are properly addressed.

Only time will tell what shape the fully-formed IoT will take. Step one to world domination is working this out, and avoiding the temptation to fill our lives with little more than gimmicky kitchenware. Step two is to convince consumers that they can trust the IoT by ensuring security and privacy are built into its very core. Only then can the IoT really flourish.

We all need our hands held sometimes, and stories have done this for millennia. However, a generation has now developed that looks for those hands to come out of a real-life person on a computer screen rather than a fictional person in the pages of a novel – I am talking about the world of YouTube. Yes, this simple video-sharing website is much more than a place to watch 'Charlie bit me'. It has spawned the peculiar species known as the YouTuber – someone who films themselves discussing particular topics and documents their life for viewers to watch. Yes, my Dad will never understand it either, but mention Zoella,Tanya Burr or Sprinkle of Glitter to a fifteen year old girl, and you can expect a response of such unconditional love that previously might have only been expected of Beatles fans.

But YouTubers are not international music stars – they are just like you and me. Take Zoella: her YouTube channel centres around her boyfriend and her puppy, details of her recent shopping purchases, make-up demonstrations and friendship quizzes. It is not exactly nuclear fission, but she has over 7 million subscribers and her videos have accumulated over 30 million views. She probably has greater personal impact than most politicians, and was named on the Debrett's Most Powerful list this year.

Speaking of powerful, you should see their relationship with their viewers, who flock to see them at festivals and roadshows. This admiration is not built on what viewers have learned about mascara, it's more about the underlying messages about body image, bullying, education, anxiety and relationships that YouTubers put across in their videos. OK, these 'moments' may not be quite as profound as those we experience reading Keats, but we shouldn't underestimate their power for young people, and YouTubers themselves certainly don't. In a recent interview with The Telegraph Zoella said 'I know that I do have influence over the people who watch me… I am mindful of the responsibilities that come with a substantial viewership'.

As you might expect, retail businesses have also been quick to realise the potential of the YouTube platform. Adverts before, during and next to YouTube videos can make big money for brands, as can formal endorsements from YouTubers. But there is also a lot of product review content on YouTube with no money changing hands behind it, so last year the Advertising Standards Agency sent out a message to YouTubers that they should tell their viewers upfront if a video is sponsored by a particular brand. The need for such guidelines demonstrates the financial power of this medium, never mind the ideological one.

So what about books? Well, books are the next Big Thing for YouTubers. In December last year Zoella's first novel Girl Online became the fastest selling novel since records began and Ella Woodward's debut vegan cookbook Deliciously Ella enjoyed nearly three months at the top of the Amazon.co.uk bestseller list. Many others are following suit. But surely the point of YouTubers is that their medium is video? Why seek out opportunities in the print-publishing sector, which we were told was condemned to extinction?

A lot of it seems to do with legacy and longevity. Ella Woodward summarised that 'online is very transient; people only look at what happened recently', and Tanya Burr said '[Penguin] were the main publishing house I had heard of growing up… I just felt it would be so exciting to have my very own book published by them'. This is all part of the History Boys' adage: there is something about reading a book that makes you feel like you are engaging in a longer, deeper conversation. For readers, this is often a conversation with the book's characters and themes; but for writers, it is a conversation with other writers, and other generations of writers.

Forget seeing your name in lights – we still live in a world where seeing your name beneath the title of your book marks real success. That is quite a happy thought.

Rebecca Rose

Endorsing the possibilities this opportunity creates, Claire Perry, the Minister for Transport, has said: "Driverless vehicle technology has the potential to be a real game-change on the UK's roads, altering the face of motoring in the most fundamental of ways and delivering major benefits for road safety, social inclusion, emissions and congestion".

But what are some of the challenges that may arise as driverless technology develops?  

Driverless cars pose significant questions in terms of responsibility. In the event of a crash for example, who is responsible, and how would the cause be determined? While current motor policies are focussed on the driver, it is most likely that with driverless technology, the car manufacturer will be responsible for the product's safety - and, in the event of car malfunction, it will be a product liability issue, requiring advanced software to analyse a car's own automated system. It has been predicted by some in the motor insurance industry, that driverless technology will signal the end of traditional motor insurance and products will need to evolve significantly to respond to the changing needs of the market.

On top of this (and what I think is possibly the biggest challenge), is the cultural shift this technology demands. I rather enjoy driving, and whereas, apparently, many people associate driving with stress, I actually find it quite relaxing (whether those lucky enough to be in a car with me whilst I'm driving share that sentiment is another matter), but in any event, I can't say I feel overly enthused about giving up the driving seat. Undoubtedly there are potential benefits, not least the increased independence that automated cars can offer to those who are unable to drive, as well as the removal of human error and resulting decrease in accident rates, but nevertheless I can't help but feel that there will remain a significant number of us who are loath to give up driving our own vehicles.

For the moment I can rest assured, as it is likely to be some time before automated cars are a normal sight on our roads. It is not purely a matter of getting the technology right, but also the regulation, and the government has promised a full review of current legislation by summer 2017, involving a rewrite of the Highway Code and adjustments to MOT test guidelines.

Reservations also remain in relation to the safety and security issues that driverless technology presents. Will Rockall, director at KPMG's cyber-security practice, has emphasised the importance of understanding the security issues from the outset and ensuring adequate protection is embedded at an early stage:

"…designers need to ensure that new technologies are robust … As increased automation is introduced the threat of hacking and cyber-attacks will become more real as the control of vehicles and routing is removed from human beings."

 The additional software that driverless cars require, which will inevitably be connected to the vehicle's key systems, including steering and brakes, will, as explained by Jeff Williams, CTO and founder of Contrast Security, result in a considerable attack surface. As Jeff puts it, and I wholeheartedly agree: "…surely someone will find a way to hack it. I just hope it’s a responsible security researcher and not a malicious psychopath." I think for the moment I will be keeping both hands quite firmly on the steering wheel.

Emma Kislingbury

Despite the outcome of the independence referendum, the election results north of the border highlight the fact that there is an appetite for change amongst many Scots. It is possible that they (like many elsewhere in the UK) have grown tired of the empty platitudes expressed by the so-called 'Westminster political-elite', who only bothered to visit Scotland when it became apparent that independence was a real possibility. Many Scots have become disillusioned with the perceived Westminster tactic of claiming Scotland's best assets (including North Sea oil) for itself, whilst neglecting other areas which are already in decline. This is not unlike the press coverage of Andy Murray, who is "British" when he wins but "Scottish" when he loses. If another independence referendum was held tomorrow, it is possible that the result would be different (or, at the very least, much closer).

One potentially important development is that SNP leader Nicola Sturgeon has (for now) distanced herself from any talk of another referendum on Scottish independence in the near future. However, should she change her mind (which would not be an unprecedented act as far as politicians are concerned) there is a real fear that an independent Scotland could plunge the remainder of the UK into an energy crisis.

There is some evidence that these fears may be unfounded. Whilst North Sea oil production still accounts for a significant proportion of the UK-wide figure, output levels have been declining for a number of years. Employment figures in oil industry hotspots such as Aberdeen are also decreasing, which suggests that the North Sea industry is gradually winding down. This is not a resource that Scotland (or the rest of the UK) should continue to take for granted.

Some experts have predicted that the rest of the UK's energy reserves might in fact offer more long-term sustainability than Scotland's, if the latter became independent. This view is at least in part supported by the recent discovery of potentially significant oil reserves at Horse Hill near Gatwick Airport, which prospector UK Oil and Gas (whose exploration licence has recently been renewed) suggested could contain "up to 100bn barrels of crude". It is also worth remembering that the nascent shale gas industry enjoys significant support in the UK, with MPs recently voting in favour of amendments to the Infrastructure Act which endorse fracking (hydraulic fracturing using water, sand and chemicals to release oil and gas deposits from shale plays) in approved locations. The UK's resurgent nuclear power industry has also enjoyed a recent boost, with EU Competition authorities finding that revised plans to subsidise the construction and operation of the Hinkley Point nuclear power station are compliant with EU rules on State Aid.

Whilst some of us may hope that the SNP's fantastic (and not entirely unexpected) election performance will be a warning heeded by Westminster that results in a greater and more effective devolution of powers to the Scottish people, there remains a fear (however small or unfounded) that future Scottish independence will have an irreversibly negative effect on the wider UK energy industry. It should not be forgotten that the bigger, long-term issue here is the global decline in sustainable energy reserves – a problem that is surely better addressed as a stronger, United Kingdom rather than as two weaker, independent states.

Marc Freedman

Celebrities in the UK have long since used their fame to voice opinions on political parties. John Cleese filmed a three-minute monologue endorsing the Liberal Democrats in 1992 and Sean Connery has always been a vocal supporter for the SNP. However, it is in America where celebrities appear to have wielded the most influence on politics, in recent years.

Celebrity influence on American politics has a long history, going back to John F. Kennedy's courting of Frank Sinatra and Marilyn Monroe. More recently, in the 2012 election, many celebrities publically backed certain candidates, with Jay Z, Will Ferrell and Bill Gates choosing Barack Obama, and Donald Trump, Kid Rock and Gene Simmons plumping for Mitt Romney. Celebrities have also made large donations to the cause of their chosen candidate. A fundraiser for Obama's campaign hosted by George Clooney and boasting a star-studded guest list (including the likes of Barbra Streisand) reportedly netted $15 million for the campaign fund. The interplay between celebrity and politics in America is no better demonstrated than by the likes of Ronald Reagan and Arnold Schwarzenegger leaving the celebrity world and entering the political field.

Is the situation that different in Britain? Whilst we might like to think we keep the spheres more separate, this doesn't appear to be the case. The wealth of celebrities who have appeared on Question Time (Russell Brand, Hugh Grant, Joey Barton, Will Young, Carol Vorderman, Jarvis Cocker) shows we are interested in the political opinions of celebrities. British celebrities have wielded financial influence on politics too. JK Rowling made a £1 million donation to the Better Together Campaign in 2014 and Sir Alex Ferguson has been a long-time Labour donor, supporter and even advisor (to Tony Blair).

In the run up to this election the media is full of the opinions and endorsements of celebrities. If it isn't Joey Essex's General Election: What are You Saying?! TV special (where, after interviewing Nick Clegg, he is made aware "that the party's name [is] not the Liberal Democats") then it is Katie Hopkins threatening to leave the UK if Ed Miliband is elected. Unfortunately for the controversial Hopkins (who recently referred to migrants as "cockroaches"), the threat has been seized on by Labour supporters as a reason to vote Labour. Whether Hopkins would make good on the threat in the event Miliband is elected, as Phil Collins did when Labour won in 1997, remains to be seen.

Russell Brand's recent interview of Ed Miliband demonstrates the power celebrities can have. Thousands of column inches, air time, tweets and internet commentary were devoted to what was said, why Miliband chose to appear and whether this was a good or bad decision. The exposure even led David Cameron to comment on the video. And with more than 1.1 million subscribers to Brand's YouTube channel, it is undeniable that the video has given Miliband a lot of exposure, perhaps to people he wouldn't necessarily reach on the ordinary campaign trail. Interestingly, this interview (in which Brand does not endorse Miliband) has received much more publicity than Brand's interview of Caroline Lucas and Natalie Bennett in which he urges the people of Brighton to vote for Caroline Lucas. However, Brand's follow-up video, released over the bank-holiday weekend, does go as far as endorsing Miliband, suggesting viewers vote Labour (unless in Brighton – where he backs Caroline Lucas).

But does such celebrity endorsement and commentary really have an influence? Research in this area is divided, but would appear to indicate that celebrities can have some influence on voters (although to what degree is unknown). Research from Northwestern University and the University of Maryland estimates that Oprah Winfrey's endorsement of Obama in 2008 was responsible for him receiving approximately 1 million extra votes. Likewise, the research of Anthony Nownes, of the University of Tennessee, indicated that people are less likely to report liking a political party when told that certain celebrities (whom they disliked) were donors. Clearly, then, celebrities do wield some power. However, research from the University of Bath suggests that celebrity endorsements are only effective in driving voter intention if that voter was not already engaged in politics; if you were already thinking of politics and political issues, celebrity endorsement is unlikely to have an effect on you. Ultimately, the answer is unclear because asking someone whether they are influenced by celebrities is like asking them if they are influenced by subliminal advertising – even if they are, they won't necessarily realise that is the case!

So, when you head to the polls today try to think about the policies and the leaders, not Katie Hopkins and Russell Brand!

Genevieve Isherwood

Image attribution

As the parliamentary arithmetic sits on a knife-edge for the 2 major Parties, this election is destined to throw up more constitutional questions and latent crises than any other in recent history.

What, then, will happen after May 7th and what are the processes/possibilities following the election result?

Think Mel Gibson's Apocalypto. I'm indulging in the same sort of hyperbole that we are used to hearing from our political leaders, of course. But the possibilities are numerous and, for your inner political nerd, fairly exciting (!)

Off the back of the latest poll of polls, the Tories look set to win around 280 seats, while Labour is set for around 270. Based on the pledges of the smaller parties and their projected seats, for the Tories to form even a coalition Government, they would have to hold around the same number of seats as they currently have (302), or certainly no fewer than 290.

The path to No.10 is, however, somewhat easier for the Labour party. In the first instance, the electoral dice is loaded in their favour – they could, in theory, form a majority government with 36% of the national share of the vote (in contrast to the Conservatives who require almost 40%). The SNP have, however, put the cat amongst the proverbial pigeons in relation to Labour's Scottish strongholds – one poll suggests the SNP will win ALL of the available 59 seats in Scotland. Deals with the SNP, the Greens, Plaid, the Lib Dems and Independents are, nonetheless, all on the cards for Labour.

In terms of practicalities following the vote - the PM, as incumbent, gets first crack of the whip in forming a Government (326 seats are needed to form a majority Government). Depending on whether they can hold their current seat numbers and how badly the Lib Dems come out of this, a deal could be done (probably with DUP support) in a few days, as in 2010, which would inevitably entail the policy horse-trading that is widely detested by the electorate.

However, even if "call me Dave" is unable to get over that 325 threshold he could still remain in office if he is certain that he could approach Her Majesty in confidence that he can get his first piece of legislation (the Queen's Speech) through the Commons. If the Queen's speech gets voted down by the remaining MPs in Parliament, the PM will have to attend the Palace and offer his resignation and MUST then recommend a successor.

It will then be Red Ed's turn to have a stab at governing. He will require the Queen to attend Parliament to deliver her Speech (which she can, in fact, do by proxy).  

Luckily Her Maj has kept up her Tuesday morning Pilates, so she should have no problem handling the toing and froing from the Palace of Buckingham to Palace of Westminster to read out her speech (drafted by her wannabe Ministers).

Labour has ruled out a formal coalition with the SNP (whose support would be a prerequisite for forming a Government). It will, therefore, be for Labour to "dare" the SNP, so to speak, to vote down their Queen's Speech and, potentially, pave the way for the return of Mr Cameron and/or another election. The former would be a hard sell for the SNP to the Scots and the latter poses yet another interesting possibility.

A so called "confidence and supply" agreement and minority Government would be the viable alternative, with the SNP supporting a Labour budget and on a vote-by-vote basis thereafter, in exchange for their own policies making their way onto the statute books. The very notion of material SNP influence on any Westminster Party-led Government raises fundamental questions of "legitimate Government" and whether or not such an arrangement would be constitutional. I unfortunately have not the space to address such questions here.

The Con-Lib coalition, as you know, passed the Fixed-Term Parliaments Act in 2010 (the "Act"). This fixes Parliaments in 5 year tranches. If no government can be formed in the first instance by either Party, they would, you might think, have to hold another election (as is tradition). In order to do this under the Act, a motion of no confidence would need a 2/3 majority to trigger an election. Now, any constitution 1-0-1 lesson will teach you that "no Parliament can be bound" and a simple majority is all that is needed to effect any change that Parliament wills…This clash of nebulous constitutional authority and statute would amount to a bona fide constitutional crisis, which is very much on the cards, and I, like you (I'm sure), cannot wait to see the outcome…

Constantine Christofi

Image Attribution

The NHS was launched by the post-war Labour government in 1948 with the ideal that good healthcare should be available to all, regardless of wealth, and with the principle that the service should be financed entirely from taxation.

The NHS is now one of the world’s largest publicly funded health services, and employs more than 1.6million people. Its funding still comes directly from taxation. Following a term under the Conservative and Liberal Democrat coalition, David Cameron vows that the NHS is “safe”. Yet evidence (and headlines) shows that the NHS is under severe strain, with significant pressure on A&E departments, GPs, community services and social care.

Whilst David Cameron has denied privatisation of the NHS over the last five years, his party has previously questioned the NHS’ affordability. To counteract ever-widening spending gaps, alternative options could be reduced entitlement, top-up charges, and more private GPs and private medical insurance, with the extreme being a move towards a United States style health system. However critics have expressed their concern that moving away from the NHS' 1948 core principle could bring with it the prioritising of profit over patient wellbeing.

It was recently announced that our health service requires an additional minimum of £8 billion a year by 2020 to fill a spending gap. As a result, dealing with the expected shortfall in NHS funding has become a key hot topic in this year’s election debates, as the risk of losing our health service becomes a reality.

Pledges to “save” the NHS

The Conservative Party has notably committed to a minimum increase of £8 billion NHS funding per year, alongside their promises of 7-day access to GPs, extension of opening times, and an increase of funding for mental health care. Setting the additional funding at a minimum, we assume they have acknowledged the possibility that running, and improving, the NHS will cost more than £8 billion further funding a year. Seemingly omitted from these attractive pledges, however, are the sources of these committed funds.

The Labour Party is traditionally the most trusted party when it comes to managing the NHS. Their “ten year plan” addresses issues with the ageing population, and promotes integration of health and social care services. Yet they have rejected the request for a further £8 billion, and commit instead to £2.5 billion a year, through its “Time to Care Fund”, in order to hire more NHS staff. This will be funded from tackling “tax avoidance”, the mansion tax, and new levies on tobacco companies. Whilst detailing the sources of funding instills more confidence in their pledges’ likelihood, the party falls significantly short from the NHS’ required minimum, whilst still promising additional extras such as GP appointments within 48 hours and cancer test results within one week.

The Liberal Democrats do pledge to invest the £8 billion a year by 2020, but with only an initial £1 billion per year until 2017/18, which will be concerning to those parts of the NHS which are already struggling. Alongside the limited funding, improvements are still promised: a £500 million investment in mental health, reforming payment systems and contributing to additional research. Their pledges include significant detail for the further integration of health and social care, though interestingly none of the three main parties have pledged to increase social care spending.

The Green Party stands out in its pledge for an additional £12 billion a year, paid for by extra alcohol and tobacco taxes, suggestion of an "NHS tax", and with a serious drive to stop the increasing privatisation of the NHS. UKIP promises a much smaller £3 billion a year, funded by pulling out of Europe and giving Scotland less money, whilst also compelling migrants and visitors to the UK to have private health insurance.

The future of the NHS

It gives no great comfort that the Conservatives' promise to foot the required bill from day one is not supported by details of the sources of funding, and that many of the parties are not able to even promise the funds needed to fill the shortfall. The high chances of a coalition in this election will muddy the waters further.

By the time of the next general election, our health service may have changed dramatically. Perhaps it is too optimistic to hope that the NHS’ shortfall has been grossly miscalculated, or our next government finds a few billion down the side of the Downing Street sofa. In any event, protecting arguably our most precious asset should be made a priority.

Kristiana Reynolds

Image Attribution

Labour

Women voters are extremely important to Labour. Labour has traditionally polled better with women than men, therefore many of their policies are designed to appeal particularly to women. Throughout this campaign Labour has really been pushing that they are the party of the NHS. They have a plan for the NHS and they know how they are going to pay for it (allegedly). This is important as 59% of women in the poll referred to above said the NHS was the area of greatest concern to them. Of course there have been controversies along the way (the pink bus) however it is a party openly committed to gender equality. Its key policies include: introducing a Violence Against Women and Girls bill, potential grandparental leave and establishing more secure funding for rape crisis and domestic violence centres.

The Conservatives

The cuts made during the last Government have been shown to have hit women the hardest. Unemployment has dropped for men and risen for women while the gender pay gap has increased. Therefore the Tories have had to work hard to gain ground with women.  This has mainly been done through asserting themselves as the party to be trusted with the economy and the NHS. In order to do this they have been changing their language. For example "we want to cut the deficit" doesn't poll as well as "we need to reduce the debt your children will have to live with in the future". The Tories have also come out with some interesting policies aimed at women particularly in relation to childcare. They have pledged 30 hours of free childcare per week for working parents of 3&4 years olds – that's 5 hours more than Labour. The Tories are also committed to introducing further legislation to prevent employers discriminating against gender and are looking at legislation to address the gender pay gap.

UKIP

UKIP has traditionally polled badly with women. Nigel Farage has tried to rationalise this by remarking that women don't like UKIP because they are too much of a risk, they represent a shaking up of the establishment. The UKIP policies are not particularly female friendly nor aimed at women. Farage himself has remarked that at times the party has looked 'blokeish' and there have been numerous occasions where the party has been accused of being sexist. However, in a rather unlikely move UKIP became the first party to end the "plain stupid" tax on sanitary products. VAT is currently taxed on sanitary products as they are considered "non-essential items". The Tories, Lib Dems and Labour have all refused to get rid of the levy saying that the products are taxed at the lowest rate possible under EU law – 5%. However UKIP as part of its anti-EU crusade has vowed to abolish this "outdated and outrageous" tax on women. Suzanne Evans, UKIP's head of policy has said that “No other party can pledge to take this simple step, as under EU rules no item that has ever had VAT charged on it can have VAT removed completely". However, while this is a step in the right direction its sexist image is likely to be a little harder to shake.

Charlotte Gough

Image Attribution

Give up? 

Employment Tribunal fees. 

For non-employment lawyers, this issue may so far have passed you by in the run up to the election – but it will likely be one of the first areas of legal change or consolidation of our new government (whomever that may comprise).

Employment Tribunal fees were introduced in July 2013.  The change split opinions: you loved it or you loathed it. Employer bodies broadly welcomed the initiative; employees and their representative bodies saw it as the thin end of the wedge. The fees were structured on two levels (one for simple 'Level 1' claims such as those for unpaid wages or payment in lieu of notice and one for complex 'Level 2' claims such as unfair dismissal and discrimination).  Level 1 claims now attract an issue fee of £160 and a hearing fee of £230 and Level 2 claims attract an issue fee of £250 and a hearing fee of £950. 

The upshot of this was that the Ministry of Justice reported a 79% drop in claims brought in the Employment Tribunal by the following March.

Much of corporate Britain wondered why the reduction in claims was a problem. The system swiftly weeded out the weak claims at an early stage. But, looked at another way, the time in your life when you are least likely to be able to spend up to £1,200 (not including legal fees) on bringing a civil claim is when you have just lost your job, which means that these fees present a significant barrier to justice for those who have been unlawfully dismissed from their employment, particularly the vulnerable. But there are other, broader judicial and social issues at play:

• Many of our employment laws derive from EU directives, and if potential claimants are dissuaded from challenging the unlawful actions of their employers because of the associated costs then it is more likely that EU employment laws will be breached.
• Should individuals be personally responsible for funding our justice system?
• It is still the case that women typically earn less than men, meaning that these fees indirectly discriminate against women who are even less likely to be able to pay them.
• The same goes for low paid migrant workers, who statistically face enhanced issues in the workplace in the form of National Minimum Wage and working time disputes.

Unison tried to challenge the implementation of Employment Tribunal fees via Judicial Review but were refused permission by the High Court in December 2014. They have been given leave to appeal this decision but that appeal is still pending.

So, what do the parties say about it?

Conservative

Unsurprisingly (it was their initiative, after all), the Conservatives have announced no change to the Employment Tribunal fees system in their manifesto.  However, they have pledged to support various employment enhancement initiatives: they will accept the Low Pay Commission's recommendation that the National Minimum Wage should rise to £6.70 this autumn, they promise to support the Living Wage and will challenge exclusivity in zero-hours contracts and the exploitation of migrant workers (ideas on a postcard, please).  

Labour

The Labour manifesto pledges to abolish Employment Tribunal fees altogether.  They say that this will be part of a wider reform to the Tribunal system in the interests of access to justice, encouraging speedier resolutions for employers and avoiding extra costs to the taxpayer (presumably the latter two points are a way of saying that they will promote alternative dispute resolution in employment disputes).

Liberal Democrat

The LibDem manifesto is a little nebulous on their plans for Employment Tribunal fees.  They say they will 'review' them to 'ensure they are not a barrier' but this is only as part of a general move to improve the enforcement of other employment rights (including minimum wage classifications and flexible working arrangements).

Green

The Green Party manifesto pledges to reduce Employment Tribunal fees (they don't say by how much – just 'so that they are accessible to workers'). They also plan to phase in a 35-hour working week and introduce a maximum pay ratio of 10:1 between the highest and lowest paid person in every organisation. Workers of the world, unite!

UKIP

Guess what?  UKIP have nothing to say about Employment Tribunal fees in their manifesto. They do, however, have some incredibly interesting thoughts on employment in the UK following an exit from the EU. Apparently, no UK jobs are dependent on EU membership. Enjoy reading through that.

Legal issues of employment always capture the attention of the public because it is one area of law that everyone has a personal interest in. Our politicians know that, but are they doing enough? Will these issues affect the way you vote on Thursday?

Rebecca Rose

Image Attribution

Whilst the number of food banks has indisputably increased, and the number of people relying on them is, quite frankly, shameful in a country that prides itself in having welfare provision for all of its citizens, is it right that they are reviled as being a problem or is their presence, perhaps, little more than an example of society in action? Where the elected have failed, society has stepped up.

The users of food banks have been referred by doctors, jobcentres, social workers or the police and on this referral will be provided with a parcel of three days worth of food from their local food bank. These food banks are designed as an emergency stopgap and people are, except for in exceptional circumstances, only able to collect up to three parcels. A shocking statistic published by The Trussell Trust, the UK's largest food bank provider, stated that 1,084,604 people received three days' food in 2014/15.

The even more shocking truth is that The Trussell Trust's 421 food banks are believed to account for only approximately half of the country's network, but there is no complete database of charities providing emergency food aid. This lack of curiosity as to the number of people slipping through the government's welfare net was highlighted by the Department for Work and Pensions when in 2013, in response to a Freedom of Information request, it stated that "the government does not monitor the use of food banks and has no plans to do so". The government also does not collect data on people living with food insecurity in the UK, despite John Middleton, vice-president at the Faculty of Public Health, revealing that GPs had reported a rise in Victorian-era diseases as a result of malnutrition as those on low incomes struggled to feed their families.

One particularly unsavoury suggestion as to why increasing numbers of families are relying on food banks came from the Conservative minister for welfare reform in 2013, Lord Freud, a former investment banker, who said that "if you put more food banks in, that is the supply. Clearly food from a food bank is…a free good and there's almost infinite demand".

Dickensian sentiment aside, the statement from Lord Freud highlights the bizarrely hostile attitude that exists within government towards food banks. What we have here is a societal response to a crisis, people recognising that for whatever reason (it should be noted that a recent study at the University of Oxford found that increased use of food banks was linked to higher unemployment and welfare cuts) state welfare is not reacting quickly enough and is not helping all of those most in need. Yet the government, and the opposition, seem to react to the existence of these food banks by labelling them as a problem rather than addressing the underlying cause and embracing their utility in the meantime.

These food banks highlight a solution, a viable way of assisting those in need with a quick turnaround time and yet, instead of monitoring the situation and working to assist the communities that rally around the needy, the state chooses to ignore the issue, blame somebody else or criticise. Whilst the election will not be won on issues such as these, it bears remembering that these food banks are a stark reminder of the fact that there is such a thing as a society and that it is a very different thing to the state.

Amelia Payne

Image attribution

What does that balance look like? The ankles, the pelvis, the thorax and the head should be aligned vertically so that from a side view they form a straight line. It's hard to do that sitting over a desk, isn't it? That's why you have to teach children to sit in chairs, and why most will rail against it for as long as they can: it's a completely unnatural position for the human body to adopt. I'd venture to guess that as you are reading this you have your feet or legs crossed; that you are leaning into one side of your chair and relying on your lower spine to bear your weight; and that you are rounding your shoulders and hunching your neck forward in order to rest your hands on your keyboard. You may be writing a pretty fine advice note for your client, but as your shoulders slump you are putting undue pressure on your heart and reducing your lung capacity; as your back muscles continually tense to compensate for the imbalanced posture you are pre-disposing yourself to headaches and back pain; and you are impairing the function of your internal organs as they are displaced downwards. Peak performance at anything is virtually impossible when your body works under these conditions. That advice note may not be quite as good as you thought.

#Sorrynotsorry for the wake-up call, but now on to the good news. Here's how yoga can help (sometimes even when you're sitting in that life-threatening chair).

Breathe

The optimum rate for human breath is five per minute (inhaling for four to five seconds and exhaling for five to six seconds). This will promote mental and physical relaxation, lower your heart rate, raise immune system activity and increase your heart rate variability. This underpins all the other activity and movement of your body (and it's not hard to see how it could improve your work and temperament).

Lying leg hug (pavanamuktasana)

This may not be a practical one for the office, but it's a great one for when you get home and need to reset your posture. Lie facing upwards on the floor, hug your knees close to your chest and gently rock from side to side with your eyes closed. This enhances blood circulation in the hip joints, eases tension in the lower back, massages the abdominal organs (it's very good for digestion) and the rocking motion aids better, deeper sleep.

Cradle the baby

Sit with dignity (the easiest shortcut to alignment), take one leg in your arms as if you were holding a baby, and rock from side to side. This loosens your hips (which are chronically tight in most western adults because of sitting), helps prevent knee strain (good news for cross-legged sitters!), and, much like the action of cradling a baby, is incredibly soothing for your mind.

Reverse prayer (pashchima namaskarasana)

Join your palms together behind your back and gently slide them upwards until your elbows are perpendicular to your spine. This opens your chest and shoulders and strengthens the joints in your upper body, which are becoming irreversibly damaged by the 21st century default position of sitting round-shouldered at a computer screen.

Downward facing dog (adho mukha svanasana)

Start on your hands and knees, setting your knees directly below your hips and your hands slightly forward from your shoulders. Spread your palms and tuck your toes under, lifting yourself up on an exhale. Focus on maintaining the strength in your arms and legs, keep your head between your upper arms and your heels as flat as you can. This is perhaps the king of asanas, simultaneously energising the body, stretching the shoulders, hamstrings, calves, arches and hands, strengthening the arms and legs and relieving stress and anxiety. If ever there was a way to counter the effects of sitting in a chair all day, this is it (especially when teamed with its upward facing dog partner, but that is for next time…).

All is not lost. We may have to sit at desks and write emails, but every action has an equal and opposite reaction. If you work at a desk, make yoga yours.

Rebecca Rose

https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0/

The level of threat that such attacks pose was highlighted recently when the World Economic Forum identified technological risks, in the form of data fraud, cyber attacks or infrastructure breakdown, as one of its top 10 risks facing the global economy in its 2015 Global Risk Report.

Such attacks create a constant battle for companies, faced with fighting increasingly sophisticated attackers who are developing ever more innovative ways of breaking through their defences, resulting in potentially catastrophic losses.

The rising number of attacks and their cost implications has led to a fast-growing cyber insurance market for insurers and reinsurers. Not only is there a demand to develop cyber coverage models to meet these new threats, but there is also a need to educate and advise clients in advance of attacks, in order to reduce the potential risk. Although many cyber breaches are seemingly impossible to prevent, raising awareness of the threat and responding promptly in the event of an attack can have a huge impact on the cost implications for an insured.

Until now, cyber insurance has been viewed as a predominantly US business, driven by numerous high profile and well-publicised attacks, and unsurprisingly, the US market is the biggest and most developed globally, with approximately $2bn of premium in 2014. Although this figure contrasts significantly with the approximate €150m ($167.8m) of premium in Europe's emerging cyber insurance market, the awareness of cyber threats here is rapidly growing. A recent UK government-backed cyber governance health check of FTSE 350 companies indicated that 88% of those companies now include cyber-risk in their risk management and risk register, compared to only 58% in 2013.

Growth in this sector is expected to continue and the London market stands to benefit significantly from this increasing demand. Tom Reagan, US cyber practice leader at Marsh in New York, has said: “We are counting on London. Cyber insurance is going to be a bigger and bigger market, but it’s going to be volatile and require the underwriting skills of London.”

In an increasingly digitised world however, the scale of the cyber threat and changing nature and complexity of the risks mean that the potential level of insurance cover which companies require is rocketing. It is not just data breaches driving the cyber insurance market anymore, with other cyber events resulting in business interruption and property or casualty damage.

As a result, industry experts have called for the government to step in and provide cover. Stephen Catlin, the founder of Catlin (the largest Lloyd's of London insurer which has recently agreed to a takeover by New York-listed rival XL), recently warned that cyber attacks constituted “the biggest, most systemic” risk he had seen and should be covered by governments as insurers’ balance sheets were not large enough.

Despite recent significant growth in the cyber insurance market, the restrictions on cover and tendency to charge high premiums illustrate the reservations amongst insurers about underwriting cyber security risks. Not only are such risks difficult to model, but, as Stephen Catlin pointed out, they can also have a systemic nature, which can result in simultaneous, potentially huge payouts for insurers to absorb.

Whether any such state-backed scheme will be established remains to be seen, but in any event, cyber security is certainly not a threat to be ignored and companies need to be reviewing their risk management processes to protect themselves, as much as they can, against this ever increasing and evolving threat.

Emma Kislingbury

Image attribution

Is it appropriate for RPC to be a Stonewall Diversity Champion when we have an office in Singapore, where homosexuality is illegal? Whilst I was somewhat stumped for an answer at the time, HR were able to advise that whilst RPC is required to abide by Singapore's laws, as with any country, the firm wouldn't compromise its principles to "fit in". If a conflict with such laws arose, RPC's number one priority would be the wellbeing of its staff.

Whilst that addresses RPC's position, the question did get me thinking more generally. Should companies work and invest in countries whose principles (and laws) do not align with their own?

But this is not just a hypothetical question: this has got companies into trouble many times before. For example, Procter & Gamble and Ernst & Young, have both received negative press attention for their involvement in Russia. This may have had little effect on the company in the long term, but in some cases it has created enough of a spark for changes to be made in company policy.

Burma Campaign UK runs campaigns aimed at preventing companies from "investing in Burma in ways which contribute to human rights abuses". Their work has been very effective: in October 2008 their campaign against Cotton Traders led to the company deciding to cease sourcing clothing from Burma within days.

Likewise, in 2009,Fruit of the Loom (and its subsidiary Russell Athletic) were forced to alter their decision to close a Honduran factory (allegedly because of staff forming an employee alliance) after sustained pressure from American and British students. 96 US colleges and 10 British universities severed their contracts with the company, costing Russell Athletic an estimated $50 million in the US alone. In response to one of the largest ever student boycotts the company re-opened the Jerzees de Honduras factory, gave all 1,200 employees their jobs back, awarded them $2.5 million in compensation and restored all rights.

Broader, more ideological boycotts have changed companies' behaviour as well. G4S, H&M and Motorola have all been the subject of boycott action as a result of the Palestinian Boycott, Divestment and Sanction Movement. Ahava Active Dead Sea Products has also been criticised for maintaining a factory in the West Bank, and their Covent Garden store was forced to close after repeated protests. The Lonely Planet no longer lists the Ahava showroom as a recommended stop on a Dead Sea itinerary.

But should the answer be as simple as to cut all ties at the first sign of controversy?

If a UK company decided to restrict the countries it invested in or worked with to those whose laws exactly matched ours, its international trade opportunities would be few and far between. To start with, homosexuality is illegal in 76 countries; there are 63 countries where the legal age of consent is lower than 16 and 31 countries have not signed the UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities. Practically, never mind economically or politically, this would be completely impossible to stand by.

Is there another option? The actions of Stolichnaya vodka makers certainly suggest so. This brand is unquestionably Russian ("The mother of all vodka from the motherland of vodka"), but the company is Luxembourg based and the vodka is filtered and blended in Latvia. In July 2013, it was included in a boycott of Russian vodkas protesting against anti-gay laws enacted by the Russian government. Stoli's production company released a statement denouncing the "dreadful actions taken by the Russian Government" and described itself as a "fervent supporter and friend to the LGBT community". It also chose to make a financial donation to an unspecified group "working on behalf of Russian LGBT activists fighting against the Russian government's anti-gay policies". Following this and further brand campaigns, Stoli saw a large sales increase.

We can all strive to maintain clear company values whilst working effectively in various parts of the world. We just have to know where our tolerance stops. As Stoli shows, even at the end of that threshold, it can still be possible to make decisions that positively impact both our geographical brand and our business opportunities.

Genevieve Isherwood

Image attribution

One word - uncertainty.

Businesses hate it and general elections breed it. How can you plan ahead when you have no idea who will be making the rules in six months' time?

The impact of this uncertainty shouldn't be underestimated. Current predictions from The EY ITEM Club suggest business investment growth will slow dramatically from 9% in 2014 to a predicted 5.8% in 2015 purely as a result of uncertainty surrounding the election.

This year's election is particularly potent, with two key sources of uncertainty: the prospect of another coalition government and a possible EU referendum. Both have the capacity to send shockwaves through the UK economy and beyond.

Dave and Nick: the Sequel

Current polls indicate there is no clear leader in the election race, which means that there is a chance of a fractious three party coalition or – far worse – a government with no majority. The chance of such a government succeeding for a full term is slim according to commentators, raising the possibility of a second election within the year, and mirroring the recent political instability of countries such as Belgium and Italy. But more importantly, a weak government doesn't instil confidence; lack of confidence leads to jittery investors; and jittery investors lead to a downward spiral in the economy.

This multi-party election provides a new challenge for businesses. For decades, general elections have effectively been a two horse race. This time, the predicted destruction of the Lib Dems and the growth of minority parties such as UKIP and the Green Party have turned the election into a six or seven horse race. For business leaders, this means increasing scrutiny of policies they would have previously ignored — what is the Green Party’s view on the EU? What is Plaid Cymru's policy on corporation tax? These smaller parties are unlikely to win a majority, but they may well influence government policy as part of a compromised coalition.

EU stands for Economic Uncertainty

The Conservative Party has long been associated with capitalist trade. However, this association could be weakened during the next election now that a vote for the Tories could well be interpreted as a vote for an EU referendum. An EU referendum is a touchy subject for much of the business world, with both support and opposition being shown by various business people in equal measure. Will a referendum go ahead? Will it be a negotiation of terms or a British exit? What will happen to trade?

But in this global society where no man – or business – is an island, it is not just the men in bowler hats and grey suits who have an opinion on the EU. Figures from City AM show that over half of UK company shares are now owned by foreign investors, so it's no wonder the US has already warned the UK government of the grave economic consequences should it leave the EU.

Does this election matter?

Surely, with collapsing oil prices, the threat of Putin and the rise of global terror groups such as Islamic State, an election on one small island isn't that important in the grander scheme of things? Not according to the Chief Economic Adviser to the ITEM Club, Peter Spencer. In his view, the UK has a unique competitive advantage in that "we offer foreign investors… a haven of political stability and …proximity to Europe. If both of those are brought into question, what happens?" Spencer's message is clear - it's not just business leaders who have a valid reason to be concerned. If the rest of the world has an interest in the outcome of this election, so should we.

Gabby Ives

Image attribution

In the fallout from the financial crisis, however, volatile markets and record-low interest rates have forced the super-rich to look further afield to alternative investments which do not track financial market indices.

For decades, wealthy investors disillusioned with floundering financial markets have dabbled in the business of luxury investments, usually of the more commoditised variety: gold, jewellery, gemstones and coins. However, over the past twenty years or so, the needs and wants of high net worth individuals have matured significantly. In the beginning, only an elite minority lusted after a way to diversify their portfolio with assets that can be driven, seen, loved.

This minority chose to invest their capital in ‘passion assets’, or as Coutts has romantically branded them - 'objects of desire'. Fine wine. Classic cars. Vintage watches. Artwork. The rarest jewellery, antiques and stamps. Typically high value, fragile and inflexible, these assets are not for the faint-hearted. They generally have limited historical risk and return data, and are so subjectively valued that they are often impossible to price until auctioned. The potential risks relating to valuation have been flagged by our insurance team in the upcoming Thwaytes v Sotheby's judgement in our annual insurance review, in which a lack of careful due diligence into the provenance of a Caravaggio painting may prove to be fatal to obtaining a reliable valuation. They are illiquid; they have especially high unit costs, and are distinct in terms of their performance. By traditional business standards, this is a financial minefield. However, this exclusive brand of assets offers something more, something that Richard Taffler from Warwick Business School terms “value expressiveness”. He says “passion assets are perceived as making powerful statements about the personal values, characteristics and expertise of their owners and how they want to be seen”. These goods go beyond three dimensions; mere ownership carries connotations of prestige, prominence, and power.

Over time, this group of passion investors - motivated by hedonism as much as capitalism - has ballooned. In fact, the luxury collectibles market has swelled so rapidly that Coutts has created a ‘passion investor index’, to chart the performance of these so-called ‘objects of desire’. The financial performance that Coutts discovered has been nothing short of staggering. Over the past decade, many of these highly-desirable collectibles have significantly outstripped the investment returns of credible global stock indices. For instance, since 2005 the value of Coutts’ classic car index has risen by an incredible 250%. A unique but very real example - a Ferrari GTO valued at around £7m in 2004 was sold privately in October 2013 for a reported £33.4m. Coutts reports that vintage watches too - primarily from prestigious brands such as Patek Philippe and Rolex - have displayed extraordinary growth, increasing in value by approximately 175% just in the last decade. If this wasn’t enough, HMRC has classified motor vehicles and watches as ‘wasting assets’, deemed to have a lifespan of no more than fifty years. As a result, they are generally not subject to capital gains tax, which currently sits at an unsavoury 28%. Unsurprisingly, this has stimulated even stronger international demand for passion assets, spearheaded by ultra-high-net-worth individuals from Russia, China and the Middle East. With such huge profit potential, many investors are not just diversifying with passion assets, but in some cases placing them at the very heart of their investment strategies.

For many, this is a knee-jerk reaction. After all, the marketplace for passion assets remains a very treacherous place for the uninitiated. The uniqueness of collectibles also brings two unavoidable, but widely overlooked, costs. Firstly, there is the paramount need for extensive and reliable due diligence. With fraud and counterfeiting so commonplace in the collectibles market, even the relatively experienced run the risk of being duped by sham deals, high quality fakes, or forged provenance. Secondly, by their very nature, most collectibles are vulnerable to accidental damage. It is prudent, therefore, to ensure that passion assets are adequately insured to guarantee full coverage in the event of an unfortunate accident. Particularly for the most unique or illiquid assets, it is of paramount importance that passion assets are independently valued by a suitable panel of assessors on a regular basis. This, of course, means that the lawyerly advice would be to spare no expense, take all precautions, limit your risk exposure and safeguard your investment. But where’s the fun in that?

Stuart Harris

Image attribution

Under new rules, parents, including adoptive parents, of babies born on or after 1 April 2015 can now share up to 50 weeks of leave between them. New mums must take a compulsory two-week recovery period after childbirth but thereafter the leave can be taken in any combination, either together or separately.

Under the previous regime, new fathers could only take one or two weeks’ ‘ordinary’ paid paternity leave and up to 26 weeks of ‘additional’ paid paternity leave provided the mum (or co-adopter) returned to work.

According to the Deputy Prime Minister, behind the changes is a desire "to drive a real cultural shift and help working dads play a greater role in their child's early months." But it seems working dads are not quite ready to switch spreadsheets for CBeebies.  

In a poll by job site Glassdoor, three quarters of men surveyed said they didn’t believe leave should be divided equally. Almost 90 percent said that they would not take up the maximum period offered after their baby was born and almost half (42 per cent) would prefer to only take the minimum period of paternity leave.

For some new dads, the biggest fear is losing status at work rather than the thought of taking on baby care. Jeremy Davies from think tank the Fatherhood says: "Is status anxiety an issue?  Yes.  You've got to feel confident that if you do this it's not going to mess your career up."  The concern was evident in a survey by Linklaters, where 62 per cent of men thought that taking that time off for shared parental leave could be career damaging.

While the concerns are understandable, they fail to recognise that for years it's been accepted that women will risk foregoing their career to be the primary caregiver. Nick Clegg has pointed out in response to some of the critics of shared parental leave: "What the critics are really saying is that companies can afford to lose a woman for a few months, but they can’t afford to lose a man. The message is loud and clear: women, we don’t need you. Or, at least, we don’t need you as much. What utter rubbish."

There is also the consideration of pay. Dads on paternity leave are entitled to just £138.18 per week, rather less than the minimum wage, and nearly five out of six employers refuse to boost the statutory minimum. Again, women have been entitled to the same rate or less since maternity leave was introduced. It is unfortunate that it's taken the introduction of shared parental leave to bring this into focus. But with the debate reignited, perhaps this is the time for employers to re-examine their parental leave policies – both men and women are suffering otherwise.

Some employers – including a handful of top firms including Deloitte, Shell and PwC – have led the way and promised to match what they pay during shared parental leave with their existing maternity and adoption packages. But very few others are doing the same. As is so often the case with changes to employment laws, businesses will no doubt be concerned about red tape. And, with the scheme set to cost businesses more than £17 million in its first year alone, I suppose they have a point.

In the age of supersonic strollers and babycinos isn’t it about time employers and employees (male and female, parent and non-parent) started championing a more progressive approach? How can an initiative like shared parental leave, which bridges the gap between working mothers' and fathers' experiences of infant care and promotes equal flexible working come up against this much resistance? What does that say about us? Primary caregivers have long been assumed to be mothers rather than fathers, but in a society that has equal marriage between homosexual and heterosexual couples, women in positions of significant responsibility in the workplace and a lot of single parent families, this assumption cannot continue to go unchallenged.

Dads, you may not feel ready for full-time parenting, but have a think about what shared parental leave is offering: it's not quite as scary as you think!

Rachael Ellis

Image attribution

The new exception is part of the wider reform of intellectual property law sparked by the 2011 Hargreaves report, which criticised the UK's ability to support the innovation and economic growth encouraged by the proliferation of social media, online information sharing and user-generated content. It also aligns our system with the more flexible copyright laws of the US, Australia and France.

The aim is to provide relief for creators of parody, who will benefit from more opportunities for freedom of expression. The government believes that everyone will benefit from greater entertainment and social comment and that copyright owners are likely to benefit from an increase in sales due to improved publicity. In particular, they estimate that the exception could boost the entertainment market with £130-650m of growth per year (see page 6 of their impact assessment).

Comedians, artists and individuals are welcoming the new exception with open arms, excited that their creativity and freedom of expression will be unfettered by the red tape of costly licences from copyright owners or the risk of litigation.

However, in the legal world, lawyers are getting excited about the uncertainties left open by the new exception and views on its merits are divided. Despite the positive move towards openness, there are some failings: the rules fail to define parody, limit the exception to the blurred concept of 'fair dealing' and allow humour to be measured and quantified by those well-known connoisseurs of comedy, UK judges.

Whilst the European Court of Justice recently defined parody as 'evoking an existing work whilst being noticeably different in order to express humour or mockery', this fails to provide real certainty and there is still no UK definition. One issue is that the European definition treats the work as a whole, whilst copyright may exist in different parts of a work (e.g. the lyrics, music arrangement and choreography of a video) that are owned by different people. It also raises the following questions: how different is noticeably different and what constitutes humour or mockery? Is it acceptable to have mockery that is malicious rather than humorous?

Moving on to fair dealing, this UK concept depends on a balanced assessment of a number of different factors. The key factors are: the transformative extent of the work, the purpose and motive of the work as well as harm to the original author, proportionality of use and freedom of expression. Guidance tells us that only limited and moderate use of an original work is permitted. It also indicates that use that is commercially motivated or affects the original's commercial use will not be permitted. Advertisers in particular are warned against using the exception to insert copyright material into adverts. Despite the guidance, the concept is still unclear for many authors.

Moreover, the EU court made clear that UK judges must assess 'humour or mockery' and will therefore be the ultimate decision-makers as to whether or not potential parodies are funny enough to fall within the exception. Much as I enjoy the mental image of Lord Sumption in stitches whilst surfing YouTube, the reality is that comedy is incredibly subjective and, unfortunately, the UK judiciary is not yet representative enough of society to adequately assess the public's comedic sensibilities.

What is clear is that the ease of accessing and sharing content online is so pervasive that the new exception is likely to affect most of us in a number of ways. We all consume and produce material for different reasons, in different personal and professional capacities, using different methods. Contrast one YouTube user's protest song in response to Taylor Swift's trademarking of "this sick beat" with activist group PETA’s agenda-heavy website attack on Fortnum & Mason's foie gras policy and you begin to understand how wide a reach this exception can have. Even RPC has not escaped the tentacles of parody, with its branding campaign recently the subject of some tongue in cheek mimicry in the legal press.

Similarly, it appears the new exception has also had a varied impact on the commercial side of the creative industry. A friend at a media production company informs me that the effect is two-fold, as the risks of her company being both an infringer and a victim of copyright infringement have now increased significantly. She describes the cavalier approach now being taken to use of famous copyright phrases, lyrics or images. Equally, she is struggling more than ever to shut down some disturbing adult-content caricatures of the company’s successful children’s characters as the author seeks to rely on the new exception.

This industry perspective also reveals a more promising truth - uncertainty around the new exception will not prevent participants in the entertainment industry from putting out risky material. If potential breaches are litigated, answers to key questions could emerge far sooner than if this rule change had affected a more traditional sector. I certainly can't imagine law firms rushing to gamble with expensive lawsuits in order to express themselves more freely. Let's be grateful that we can look to the courage of creativity to test the boundaries of the parody exception and watch this space with justified anticipation.

Recently Eleanor Wilson-Holt published an article on egg-freezing which put this most recent addition to the Apple and Facebook employee benefits under the telescope. Other recent quirky perks include Google’s ball pits and AirBnB’s "Moustache Mondays" where (yes, you guessed it) everyone at work wears a fake tache...

These examples may fall under the 'sublime to the ridiculous' category, but they do raise a wider question about employee benefits more generally. What is the nature and rationale behind them? What impact do they really have on our employment? Do they also have an impact on our lives outside of work?

Employee perks can reduce turnover rates

There are real cost-saving arguments in support of competitive benefits packages.   Staff turnover rates can be reduced by as much as 50% simply by rewarding employees in the right way. The CIPD estimates that the average turnover cost per employee is £8200, with this number rising for senior managers and directors. If the research that competitive employee benefits packages genuinely minimise company turnover rates is correct, the benefits of potential savings in recruitment costs and the value of having a workforce with a deep knowledge of the business arguably outweigh the costs of providing these benefits. This point was in play in the Facebook / Apple egg-freezing offer (however negatively it may have been received by certain quarters): by giving employees a benefit that makes it easier for their job and their personal life to co-exist, employees are more likely to make the choice to remain in their employment.

Feeling valued is linked to job satisfaction

Although people look for meaning in their work and job satisfaction is clearly not just about free food and sleep pods, benefits certainly go some way towards showing employees that they are valued. According to MedLife's 12th Annual Survey into Employee Benefit Trends, those satisfied with their benefits packages are more than twice as likely to be satisfied with their jobs. 75% of those employees were also satisfied with their jobs, as compared to the remaining 25% of people who were neither happy with their benefits nor their jobs. There is a strong and clear correlation between job satisfaction and benefits satisfaction. This is likely to get stronger as Generation Y moves further into the centre of the working market, since they have already been proven to care deeply about their employment image, branding and workplace culture.

With increased job satisfaction you get a more loyal workforce

Showing your employees that you care by treating them well enhances their loyalty, productivity and happiness – which are benefits from both a commercial and personal perspective. High job satisfaction generally results in a more productive, engaged and loyal workforce. In fact (and perhaps unsurprisingly), committed employees are likely to put in 57% more effort than uncommitted employees (Bob Nelson, "1001 Ways to Reward Employees"). Further, a highly engaged workforce can help the company generate as much as 29% more revenue according to the Right Management survey.

Most people spend more time at work than doing any other activity in their lives. Perks and benefits undoubtedly make employees' lives easier, especially in highly competitive and stressful professions. But they also help the company create a happy and thriving workforce, which cannot be underestimated in enhancing its success. The power behind employee benefits from both a business and a personal perspective should not be underestimated.

Faye Brannen

Image attribution: https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0/

Since Airbnb’s launch in 2008, 11 million travellers have used their service. Beds are provided by private individuals rather than a hotel chain. Guests are matched to hosts by the San Francisco firm, they choose their rooms and pay for everything online. There are currently 550,000 homes shared by hosts in cities all across the world.

At a first glimpse, it may seem no different from staying in a bed and breakfast or participating in a car-share. However, the internet and developments in technology have made it cheaper, quicker and easier to “share” assets - and this is becoming popular on an ever-growing scale. The fundamental development in technology is the accessibility of data about individuals - what they like, where they are and where they are going. Of course, before this, renting from other consumers was possible, but it was usually much more hassle than it was worth. How would I know they would be reliable? How would I get paid? It was a logistical headache. Now, websites like Airbnb and SnapGoods match the consumers with one another; smartphones let people see where the nearest car is; the GPS tracks your driver’s location; social networks provide a way to rate users and online payment systems handle payments in a simple and transparent way.

The model works for items that are expensive to purchase and do not get used all the time. The sharing sites let individuals act as an ad-hoc taxi service at the click of an app or a boutique hotel as and when it suits them. Bedrooms, cars and houses seem to be the most obvious examples, but you can rent out fields in France, designer dresses and boats in the USA. The sharing market draws parallels with online shopping, which started about 15 years ago. Initially, customers were nervous about security and trust. However, having made their first purchase they were more willing to try buying elsewhere. Similarly, using Airbnb for the first time has encouraged people to see what else is on offer. Could this lead to new opportunities for enterprise? Perhaps people will start purchasing products solely to share them.

Consumer to consumer business is beneficial for several reasons. Owners make money from underused assets. 47% of Airbnb’s hosts say that hosting has helped them afford to stay in their homes. The “renters” also pay less than they would if they bought the item themselves or used a traditional taxi or hotel service provider. And the environmental benefits are not to be forgotten - renting a car that is already on the road cuts out the resources used in excessive manufacturing and lowers the volume of cars on the road.

There are two main concerns though: the first is finding appropriate insurance cover and the second is the regulatory uncertainty. There are unanswered questions over whether Airbnb renters should pay hotel tax for example, and in some American states consumer to consumer services have been banned after lobbying by traditional service providers. The danger is that although some regulation and consumer protection is required, too much regulation will only destroy competition in this type of industry.

Although cost and efficiency are the drivers of this economy, there could be much greater ramifications. It could actually turn us into better people. The model is completely reliant on trust between strangers. That trust is built entirely by reputation, so reputation has become the most powerful asset in this industry. The Government’s recent independent Sharing Economy Review Report provides an insight into some of the most successful firms and also illustrates how already established businesses can embrace the sharing economy. The Report calls for a start-up incubator for companies operating in this field; requests that JobCentre staff promote jobs within the sharing economy to job-seekers; and suggests lanes for car-sharing drivers in areas of high congestion. Its message is clear - the sector is growing rapidly; now is the time to share and share alike.

Flora Duguid

Image attribution

Why should we bother?

A change in temperature can come with a real financial cost to a business. A drop in body temperature causes us to consume more energy trying to keep ourselves warm. The result is we have less energy for concentration, inspiration, and insight. According to a major 2004 ergonomics study, employees committed 44% more typing mistakes and were less than half as productive at low temperatures (20°C) as when temperatures were warm (25°C).  Research from Northumbria University found that cold office temperatures particularly cause productivity to fall between 1pm and 4pm in the afternoon. This stems from the body's natural circadian rhythms coinciding with low temperatures to cause drowsiness.

Aside from the financial impact, feeling cold also affects our impression of the people around us as research has revealed a connection between physical and interpersonal warmth. Essentially, being cold makes us see those around us as cold. A drop in temperature also increases chances of employees calling in sick – whether because they are ill or because they want to avoid an unpleasant work environment. Employees will also be distracted and spend more time getting up to get a hot drink or wash their hands. Equally, putting the thermostat too high may leave employees fatigued and struggling to concentrate.

Getting it right…

So what is the optimal room temperature for productivity? There is evident disagreement between studies conducted to determine this magic number. Fans of the cold will like the outcome of the Helsinki University of Technology's research, which found that the optimal temperature range is between 21°C and 22°C. Heatseekers will prefer the findings of Cornell researchers that productivity remains high at 25°C. The UK government recommends a neutral 23.3°C.

Clearly, getting the temperature right can be a difficult task partly because being 'comfortable' is subjective and varies a lot based on personal preference.  There is also a gender issue as women often seem to get colder than men. Such differing opinion can often cause strife between employees. So much so that in one case a mediator was once called in to resolve an office altercation over temperature. According to CareerBuilder, 10% of workers have fought over the thermostat setting with a co-worker.

One suggested approach to prevent tensions from boiling over is to conduct a survey; possibly via a third party site like SurveyMonkey and experimenting with temperature settings. In any event, it's best to err on the side of warm, as it's easier for people to cool down rather than warm up.

Businesses seeking to combat temperature issues are understandably constrained by operational budgets. However, costs incurred through increased heating and employee research may well lead to drastic savings in other areas as a result of the increased efficiency. In any case, it is important to engender meaningful relationships between people at work and understand that business operates through people.  So businesses beware - when it comes to office temperature, leaving employees out in the cold can have bitter consequences for productivity and employee relations.

In terms of demand for the product itself, very little has changed.  The aviation industry is subject to occasional shocks, but flights are often seen as essential for business, and even when they are non-essential, the thought of a holiday often keeps people motivated during tough times, and as such they remain a high priority item.  The aviation industry has experienced the effects of the recession just as the high streets and the trading floors have, and they have also had to contend with near pandemics, wars and security threats, all of which have a tremendous effect on their business.  Yet passenger air traffic has continued to grow on average by 5% annually, and in 2013 net profits in developed countries were estimated to be $10.6 billion up from $6.1 billion in 2012.    

So, it is looking good for my business plan so far.  But things have changed since 2004.  Airlines have become increasingly focused on alliances, partnerships and mergers (for example, in 2011 the International Airlines Group (IAG) was formed, and this has already become one of the world's largest airline groups, encompassing British Airways, Iberia, and Vueling), and to maximise profits many airlines have started to charge for ancillary services such as baggage, seat selection and priority boarding.  In addition, we are increasingly seeing advertising in their promotional material and on the aircraft itself, and the number of on-board 'freebees' (such as food and drink) have fallen dramatically in recent years.  It was reported that by just taking away one olive from each salad served in First Class, American Airlines saved $70,000.00 in 1987.  This just goes to prove that minor changes to a business model, especially if they are hardly noticed by passengers, can lead to a big difference to an airlines bottom line.  

Deregulation has also had a significant impact on airline strategies.  As regulations in commercial aviation have relaxed, airlines gain greater freedom to vary fares in response to competition and demand.   Deregulation has also helped stimulate traffic and network growth, and the resulting competition provides increased choice to travellers.  It is the expansion into new markets that continues to have the greatest impact on network growth.  A perfect example of this was shown in a Channel 4 series, aired late last year, called 'The Worst Place to be a Pilot'.  This programme followed the 'adventures' of a number of pilots working for a relatively new airline called Suzi Air based in Pangandaran, West Java, Indonesia.  The airline has quickly grown from having one aircraft, which flew just a few routes, to a fleet, which now fly to some of the remotest places in the region.  This clearly benefits more than just the airline – adding new destinations to an airline network creates access to new revenue streams for all sorts of business and, in the example of Suzi Air, has accelerated economic development in the newly connected areas and provided vital supplies to its previously isolated residents.

The Low Cost Carriers ('LCC') business model used by Easyjet and Ryanair has also grown tremendously since 2004.  This model focuses on business and operational practices that drive down cost (e.g. flying to secondary airports, offering a single class product, avoiding frequent flyer programmes), and such tactics have helped LCCs to reduce costs by 20% to 40% compared with carriers such as British Airways and Virgin Atlantic.  The number of airlines that now operate in this sector of the industry is huge, and the recent efforts by Monarch (who have transformed from a Charter Carrier to an LCC) prove that this area is almost saturated.  As a result of the change to their business model Monarch have had to seek external investment, carry out redundancies, and their remaining staff have voted in favour of a 30% salary reduction in order to keep their jobs.  Perhaps then this area of the market is not one to be explored for the time being!

One aspect of the aviation business has definitely not changed in the last 10 years.  Despite its fall in price in recent months, fuel is still expected to remain the largest component of an aircraft's operating costs, and this is a commodity which can rise and fall so significantly in price that it can make or break an airline.  To enable the airline industry to stabilise further, efforts will have to continue to be focused on the research and development of alternatives to fossil fuel and airlines must prioritise energy efficient performance of their aircraft.  A Lockheed Martin research team are currently working on a nuclear energy concept that they believe has the potential to "revive the concept of large, nuclear-powered aircraft that virtually never require refuelling".  The end of airline reliance on fossil fuel could well be on the horizon.

Ten years on, starting up an airline seems to be a tough ask.  From start-up airlines to established industry leaders, the process involves constant learning and adaptation, and few businesses have as many challenges and variables.  Airlines are capital-intensive, competition is fierce, they are still currently fossil fuel dependent (often at the mercy of fuel price volatility).  Operations are labour intensive and subject to political influence and government control.  A lot just depends on the weather.

Having said that the outlook is positive.  Boeing forecasts that over the next 20 years the world's fleet of aircrafts will grow at an average rate of 3.6% annually.  This means the industry will also need:

·         More than 36,700 new aircraft (valued at around $5.2 trillion);

·         533,000 new commercial airline pilots; and

·         584,000 new maintenance technicians. 

It may be tough business, but someone is going to start filling those numbers.  But for those of you who are ready to call your Bank Manager, consider first this quote from Alasdair Whyte (editor of Airfinance Journal) who says: "It’s a huge ego thing and it’s a fun industry, but there's more money to be made emptying toilets on planes than setting up an airline."   It's just not plane sailing!

Matthew Collison

How have we as a nation emerged from the numerous and complex crises that have emanated from this experience?

Well, pretty much the same. It appears to be common knowledge now that even during the boom years, prior to the banking crisis, the UK was running a relatively large structural budget deficit (i.e. that portion of the deficit which remains unaffected by the cyclical nature of the economy and reveals the underlying imbalances in Government revenues and expenditures).

This fact is underlined by some scary numbers. In 2010, when the coalition came into office, the UK deficit was c. £170bn and national public debt stood at approximately £900bn. Today the deficit is c. £108bn and national debt is estimated at a staggering £1.4trn – and rising. To put that into perspective, that equates to a bill of around £20,000 hanging round the neck of every man, woman and child in the UK today.

Going by the figures from the last Budget (March 2014), servicing our debt was the Government's fourth highest sector for spending. That is to say, we flush more money down the drain (paying interest on our debt) than we do on: transport; defence; public order and safety; industry; housing and the environment; culture, media and sport; and social services.

What's more, national debt hasn't even peaked. The deficit is 'forecast' – 'forecast' being the euphemism that economists use which translates to "no-one really knows but we’ll have a wild guess at it" – to fall into surplus at around 2019. So until that point, UK government debt will go up and up, year on year.

So where do these daunting economic realities lie in conjunction with the current political landscape?

There is an idiosyncrasy unique to the last recession as compared to previous recessions – we have not experienced the levels of unemployment that should follow from such a steep decline in GDP and, indeed, that are currently ubiquitous across Europe. The Government has made a conscious effort to mitigate job losses in the public sector as a trade off against wage rises. This, you might think, would be a very good thing for the Government's electoral aspirations. What history demonstrates, however, is that higher employment levels are not necessarily of higher political value than increases in living standards. The 1980s is a paradigm of this notion.

Mrs Thatcher's Government oversaw one the greatest increases in real-terms economic growth in the post-war era. Her Government also, however, presided over some of the highest levels of unemployment across the same period. And yet, she still managed to secure 3 consecutive General Election victories as part of an 18 year Parliamentary dominance by the Tories. The fact is, regardless of how much GDP growth the economy generates or how stable employment levels are, if you can't make that broad group of people who are often termed the 'strivers' or 'aspiring middle-classes' better off, then you cannot guarantee electoral victory. Ronald Reagan's 1981 campaign was centered on the simple slogan – "are you better off now than you were 5 years ago?" Reagan's campaigners knew that playing on how people felt in their back-pocket was key in securing wide-spread voter support.

Back to today's reality. Both the Conservative party and the Labour party are languishing at around 30-35% in the polls. The post-war standard that has always seen one of these parties being a rising force against the incumbent is well and truly dead. Although not directly a matter for this article, my general belief is that as both ends of the political spectrum trample over each other to reach a political 'centre-ground' (picture a politicians' Becher's Brooke) the general public have lost interest in a political establishment where conviction and principle are confined to those 'in extremis' – that is not to say that I agree or disagree with so-called 'consensus politics', but it is hard not to argue that voter apathy is now widespread as a result.

While Labour is bearing the brunt of the responsibility for not creating a fiscally stable base to rebound off when the crisis of 2008 hit, the Conservatives are failing to attract the types of voter mentioned above. The emergence of UKIP has, ostensibly, mopped up a great many of them (along with some other potentially colourful characters). Only time will tell if the latter of these facts falls into line with previous political history that sees voters return to one of the established parties at the General Election (thus confirming the title of 'protest vote' for the newly resurgent anti-EU party).

As was confirmed in the Chancellor's Autumn Statement, whichever party wins the next General Election will be faced with having to implement even more spending cuts and tax rises. Moreover, real-terms rises in wages and subsequent living standards will continue to be the centrepiece of contemporary economic/political debate. The challenge will be improving productivity, addressing the trade deficit and encouraging more private sector investment. The massive welfare bill (approx. £220-250bn) that currently churns out billions in pensions, in-work benefits and housing benefit will need to be squeezed and it will require political nerves of steel to tackle the respective issues of the 'grey vote', wage levels and social housing reform.

How, however, do we tackle the issue of rising public sector debt? Well, one possible suggestion might be to not let politicians bribe us with our own money. Gordon Brown's greatest legacy will be bastardising the annual budget and turning it into a way for economic policy, specifically fiscal policy, to be used as a tool to garner electoral support – in other words, giving selected groups of people free stuff, funded by everyone else's, as well as their own, money.

Only with a strong economy can we continue to fund the elements of the public sector that we deem vital and have, over time, attached to our collective concept of citizenship – the NHS, for example, would feature highly on this list. As I have alluded to, this will inevitably mean addressing broader notions about where it is exactly we feel the state should or should not be playing an active role. Weaning ourselves off of the financial teat of the state must be pre-empted by addressing the financial and, to a large extent, moral obesity that has subsequently been allowed to flourish in recent years.

It is often suggested that we should go after those at the 'top' of society and those at the 'bottom' of society as both groups might seek to benefit from the perceived 'something for nothing' culture of optional taxation at the 'top' end and large state-sector handouts at the 'bottom'. I wouldn't argue with that as a starting point for the development of future Government policy in order to tackle the ongoing debt crisis. Let's hope that our current political leaders and the voting public can muster up the courage required to action this vital change.

Apple and Facebook have cooked up the idea of providing female staff the opportunity to have their eggs frozen. This is not because they have hired in Heston Blumenthal to make breakfast. Rather, these companies are offering women the choice to delay having children until they reach a more 'stable' point in their careers, in a confused bid to attract and retain more female employees.

Perhaps, for some women, this is the chance they have been waiting for. With an average cost of over $20,000, oocyte cryopreservation (the egg-freezing procedure) is prohibitively expensive and only usually available to a high-earning few. Sponsors claim that this perk is empowering; that it affords many women the opportunity to defer childbearing until a more manageable point in their lives. However, away from the lure of its financial worth a darker picture emerges, and it appears that the benefit may not be entirely sunny-side up.

The offer of egg-freezing suggests that having children is incompatible with the early stages of a female career. Jessica Cussins of the Center for Genetics and Society, cuts to the heart of the issue in her translation of this seemingly generous move, stating that "surely what they meant to say was, 'We want women at Apple to spend more of their lives working for us without a family to distract them'". It certainly seems this way. The offer also suggests that there is a better time to have children, and raises the question of exactly when this time will come. As careers grow progressively lengthier, there are no assurances that life will be less demanding in ten years' time. Indeed, egg-freezing may defer the pressures of parenthood to a point at which our working lives could be at their busiest.

There are also concerns that those who do not choose this option will be considered less dedicated to their careers. According to Business in the Community's 'Project 28-40', 81% of female non-parents thought that having children would affect their career progression. Such statistics show that it is likely that by casting this subliminal spell over their employees' reproductive choices, these companies may influence some women to choose not to have children at all.

Even more alarmingly, there has been a real lack of focus on the medical facts. Egg-freezing is neither quick nor easy. It is a six week long process that can leave the patient in considerable pain. There are high failure rates, and only 3 in 10 will actually end up pregnant. It is easy to conceive of a dystopian reality where a twenty five year old is made to feel as though she ought to submit to an invasive and painful procedure, only to find out that she cannot have children at all.

What is certain is that these are companies disproportionately populated by men. Indeed, staff at Apple and Facebook are respectively 70 and 69 per cent male. Yet they are not offering male employees the chance to freeze sperm. It is also perhaps a symptom of the tech sector, in which every problem – here that of how to juggle the demands of a career and a family - must have a quick-fix solution.

That approach is entirely misguided in this instance. Corporates should instead focus their efforts, and indeed money, on instigating and improving existing systems that will allow women to fulfil both the roles of employee and mother as best as they possibly can. Whether this is done by supporting the costs of childcare or encouraging male employees to take more paternity leave is up to the company, but an understanding that it is possible to do both must be entrenched and promoted. The Onion may have triggered a few sniggers with its satirical headline "Facebook Offers to Freeze Female Employees' Newborn Children", but it addresses an important point, namely that oocyte cryopreservation is not the answer to a significant and regrettably long-standing problem. So whilst I might jump at the chance to bring my dog to my desk, I shall remain content with a free breakfast if I can keep my eggs as they are.

Dress to impress

The idea that our clothes have a fundamental impact on the way we are perceived in the world is not a new one – there is a multi-billion pound fashion industry in the UK alone that does very well out of it. We know we have to 'dress the part' when we get suited and booted for work in the morning and we often want to 'dress to impress' when we put our glad rags on to see our friends at the weekend. However, recent studies suggest that subtle differences in clothing and appearance can have a more significant effect on career success than one might have previously imagined. This is surprising, given that in an ostensibly more meritocratic world most people believe they should judge and be judged on their capability rather than their wardrobe.

A 2013 study suggests that even those with the best intentions of judging by merit actually have very little choice in the matter, as we subconsciously make assumptions about others based on their appearance before we have even seen their face or heard them speak.

This experiment involved a group of observers seeing two images of a male with his facial features pixelated in two different poses and wearing two different suits. One suit was a bespoke tailored suit and the other an off-the-rail suit (although they were otherwise similar in material and colour). Despite only seeing the images for 5 seconds, the observers rated the man in the tailored suit more positively in terms of confidence, success, trustworthiness, salary and flexibility. Lucky him.

Not everyone has the means to wear a tailored suit every day (or would want to!), but the results of this study are arresting. Even those of us with no trained eye or appreciation for the cuts of Savile Row on some level notice the difference between a smart and a super-smart suit. More than that, we make judgements about the person wearing that suit (or not) maybe without even realising.

Dress the part

Enough about other people. We all know how it feels to put on that killer LBD that miraculously helps us shed two dress sizes, or that perfect jacket that stops us feeling quite so nervous when we go for a job interview. Everyone has a couple of items in their wardrobe that they go to when they need to give themselves a lift, and it's natural that our clothes impact on the way we feel about ourselves.

In a study carried out at Northwestern University subjects were given a lab coat to wear which they were told was a doctor's coat. Whilst wearing the coat subjects displayed higher levels of concentration compared to not wearing a lab coat. Interestingly, when the same coat was described as a painter's jacket subjects showed lower levels of concentration than they did when the jacket was described as a doctor's coat. The authors of this research argue that this demonstrates that our performance in various tasks is affected by both the symbolic meaning we attach to our clothes and the physical experience of wearing them. Similarly, in a 2011 study, subjects on a golf course who believed they were using a putter that previously belonged to a pro performed better than their non-believing counterparts.

We have no choice but to start thinking about the relationship between our clothes and our roles from an early age – usually around the age of 5 when we start wearing school uniform. School uniform trains us to associate certain items of clothing with certain behaviours, so it's no wonder this association stays with us in our adulthood as well.

Research into the psychological effects of school uniforms is extensive; however, it also appears to be inconclusive. Some studies suggest that a school uniform is beneficial in that it unites a school community, teaches children about professionalism, improves behaviour and eliminates the pressure on parents to keep their children in fashionable clothes. However, opposing studies suggest that a uniform is detrimental in that it stifles a child's creativity and personality, is an expense to families in itself and encourages rivalry between institutions. It's also seldom the most flattering outfit – either in colour or shape – that a person wears!

Smart vs. Casual

So, should workplaces enforce their own 'school uniform' of formal dress codes to enhance productivity? The answer would appear to be no. The value of a formal dress code will be completely dependent on the culture a business wants to achieve and the type of work it undertakes. A study published in Business Communication Quarterly in 2009 suggests that casual dress is generally associated with creativity and friendliness whilst more formal attire is associated with authoritativeness and competence.

Indeed, for many businesses, a one size fits all approach will be inappropriate given the fact that most organisations are made up of people with a variety of skills carrying out a variety of different roles.

Perhaps the way forward is to allow employees the autonomy to decide what they wear based on what they want to achieve in their working day. This approach is taken by companies such as Google, who encourage employees to wear what makes them comfortable, and the consultancy firm Oliver Wyman, where employees are not required to wear formal clothes when they are not doing client-facing work. These kinds of policies will be particularly effective for companies that are confident in their recruitment process (discussed by an RPC trainee here): if you believe you have the team that you want for your business, why would you worry about what they wear?

For those businesses and industries in which it is accepted that formal wear is the most appropriate and productive dress code, the odd 'home clothes day' or dress-down Friday can also be a cheap but effective means of incentivising or rewarding employees. There is no cost to a business in letting people wear their own clothes, but that gift of autonomy and trust – however short-lived – can provide a real boost to morale.

If one thing is clear, it is that this has nothing to do with fashion. This is about what our clothes symbolise in the context of where we work and what we want to achieve. The bad news is that we cannot stop ourselves from making the link between clothes and an impression of status or competency, as the lab-coat and tailored suit surveys conclusively show. The good news is that according to Fashion Psychologist Karen Pine, in the event of some symbolic fashion faux pas we can 'compensate and correct' the impression we have made by adjusting our behavior accordingly. Well, you'd certainly hope so!

Amelia Cave

Image attribution

Clifford Chance and one or two other big law firms certainly think so and have attempted to differentiate themselves by introducing a "CV blind" policy for final interviews. The aim here is to increase diversity amongst recruits, in order to prevent any perceived bias towards the "old school tie". It is without doubt fairer than the mythical company recruiter who threw half of the CVs that landed on his desk in the bin without looking at them on the grounds that "I don't want unlucky people working for me".

Laszlo Bock of Google thinks he has an even more radical solution to the problem (see here). He describes CVs (or "résumés") as "a simply awful way of marketing yourself for a job". He argues that the job descriptions people give themselves and generic sound bites from candidates can be misleading. Similarly, job descriptions can be inaccurate and the interview process flawed (because, Bock says, "we are biased, ask bad interview questions, rarely go back and check if our predictions were correct, and so on"). Ultimately, this can lead to inappropriate candidates getting hired.

Perhaps unsurprisingly, given that Mr Bock works at Google, he believes the answer to these problems lies in data. Programmes and information can match up skills that prospective employees have with gaps in a company's skills profile. He concludes by stating that "the most efficient way [to recruit] is by looking at large sets of data and inferring relationships, similarities, and predictors of success and failure".

Given that so many people (both recruiters and prospective employees) use tools like LinkedIn to seek out staff/job opportunities, the market is already using data to try and match people to jobs. Mr Bock envisages this principle going a step further, where data and programming would be able to match up an individual's skill set to the best job for them regardless of what degree they have or where they went to school (items which can take up significant space on a CV). As he puts it, "slowly we'd become able to not just match people today, but also to tell people where to invest to be ready for tomorrow's jobs".

Clearly the legal industry is not going to dive head first into an entirely mathematical approach to recruiting; however in recent years almost every law firm has bulked up its social media presence, a platform where prospective employees (particularly at a junior level) are heavily invested. Given that companies are always seeking to employ the "right people," any tool which could match up prospective employees with employers using traditional criteria, such as interests and skill set, but also taking into account other factors, such as the kind of workplace people thrive in and what sort of boss they want to have, is likely to be sought after by employers. And in Google's world, data and algorithms are part of the solution.

Those are the words of Netflix in its Reference Guide on our Freedom and Responsibility Culture.  This idea has now spread to Virgin, where Richard Branson has introduced a policy whereby all salaried staff may take holiday whenever they want for as long as they want.  They do not need to ask for prior approval and neither they nor their managers are required to keep track of their days away from the office.  As Branson has commented however, employees should only take time off when they feel 100% comfortable that they and their team are up to date on every project and that their absence will not in any way damage the business or their careers.

Since we live and work in an age where technology ensures we are accessible at all times, we now work longer and harder than ever.  Work is no longer restricted to the office and employees are often far exceeding the working hours stipulated in their employment contracts.  In this context, the traditionally strict policy on annual leave seems outdated and incongruous with modern day demand for flexible working.

This idea isn't new.  In the US unlimited leave has become increasingly prominent recently.  Evernote, a software start-up based in California, is one of many companies who have offered unlimited paid vacation for several years.  Especially around Silicon Valley, employers have picked up on this policy as a means of attracting and retaining talented people.

It is a powerful recruitment perk, especially for Generation Y (broadly defined as those born in the 1980s and 1990s).  This younger generation bring fresh skills to the workplace: they are more tech-savvy; they are often more racially diverse, socially interconnected and collaborative; and the dynamic social climate they have grown up in means they demand greater responsibilities, faster promotions and more flexible work schedules.  Employers have to accommodate these demands to ensure they have the best workforce in the future (much to the understandable annoyance of older co-workers who feel they have spent years paying their dues to rise through the ranks).

But unlimited leave is more than a recruitment perk.  It aims to lower employee stress and reduce turnover of staff, which are often consequences of working in a high pressured environment – and far more disruptive to a business than the occasional week's holiday.  This notion is central to a management philosophy known as Results-Only Work Environment, in which workers are evaluated on the basis of their output instead of how many hours they clock at the office.

It is no surprise that long hours and zero holiday results in people becoming ill, working to lower productivity levels and experiencing family tension as a result of work becoming the main priority.  It is also not a surprise that this self-destructive way of working became prevalent during the recession, where the unstable job market made employees feel as though they had to work long hours, put in face time and appear 100% committed.  Cary Cooper, Professor of Organisational Psychology and Health at Lancaster University, commented in 2012 that "workers today are suffering from presenteeism".  The problem, ironically, is that the more you work the less you get done.

Of course, unlimited leave may well not be appropriate or even positive in some corporate environments.  In commission-based jobs, unlimited leave simply limits earning potential, and the methods of calculating holiday pay will create a whole host of other problems for employers and employees alike.  More broadly, once you remove a structured system of holiday it can actually make it harder for employees to admit they need a break and request annual leave.  This is a very real concern: several US companies have reported that upon introducing unlimited leave the instances of employees taking holiday actually lessened.

To try and counter this, Evernote decided to write $1,000 cheques for anyone who took a week-long trip as long as they provided evidence of an airline ticket and reported back to their colleagues about their holiday.  The company truly believed that their staff performed better having travelled away, making them ultimately more useful to the company. 

Another US company, FullContact, went one step further and began offering their staff $7,500 per year to take their family away for a real break.  Their chief executive emphasised the importance of properly resting, disconnecting from technology and not working whilst on holiday.  As with Evernote, he commented that the staff came back more refreshed.  This is hardly surprising, and is already firmly established in EU law: the purpose behind the provisions for paid holiday, as set out in the Working Time Directive, is to protect and uphold high standards of health and safety in the workplace.  A workforce that is overworked and overtired is potentially a very dangerous one.

Unlimited leave also encourages employees to ditch the "hero mentality" that no one else can do their job but them.  There is no point hoarding knowledge and massaging the importance of your own role.  Instead, if all employees focus on documenting things, sharing knowledge and having a back-up plan, their team should perform more efficiently and this will ultimately benefit the whole organisation.

With the apparent benefits come possible detriments.  Unlimited and potentially sporadic leave places more pressure on employees to ensure work is looked after in their absence.  Teamwork will need to be seamless, and trust between team members will be tested if work is to be handed over more regularly.  Employees will need to ensure clients are aware of any absences and are not disadvantaged or irritated by any lack of continuity.

Fundamentally, the 'honour system' of unlimited leave gives employees more responsibility for their time and demonstrates the trust their employers place in them.  If staff fail to handle that responsibility, this trust may be lost, but if they manage that responsibility well, unlimited leave could be a successful policy.  It allows employees to take leave when they need it and plan it strategically around their workload.  It allows those who are planning a wedding, are renovating a new house or who have saved for a long time to go on their dream holiday to harmonise their career and their personal life, accepting that there will be years where one will take precedence over the other. 

Whilst this concept has undoubtedly taken off in Silicon Valley, it remains to be seen whether more UK companies will follow in Richard Branson's footsteps: to encourage their employees to be motivated by the work they need to get done rather than the hours they have to spend at the office.

Katie Barnett

Image attribution: https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0/

Those are the words of Netflix in its Reference Guide on our Freedom and Responsibility Culture.  This idea has now spread to Virgin, where Richard Branson has introduced a policy whereby all salaried staff may take holiday whenever they want for as long as they want.  They do not need to ask for prior approval and neither they nor their managers are required to keep track of their days away from the office.  As Branson has commented however, employees should only take time off when they feel 100% comfortable that they and their team are up to date on every project and that their absence will not in any way damage the business or their careers.

Since we live and work in an age where technology ensures we are accessible at all times, we now work longer and harder than ever.  Work is no longer restricted to the office and employees are often far exceeding the working hours stipulated in their employment contracts.  In this context, the traditionally strict policy on annual leave seems outdated and incongruous with modern day demand for flexible working.