Over the past few years, Britons seem to have developed a new favourite pastime: hating the financial sector.  Who can blame them? Almost five years after the run on Northern Rock in 2007, many are still without jobs or homes and face bleak prospects for the future.

But criticising is easy – Lord Adair Turner has to actually do something about it.  As Chairman of the Financial Services Authority, he is in charge of overseeing the regulatory response to the financial crisis, which involves the unenviable task of trying to realign the incentives in the financial sector with the interests of the rest of British society. For the UK’s most prominent problem solver and a self-proclaimed ‘technocrat’, this is just another job.

Turner’s talent and ambition were clear from his days at Cambridge, where he accomplished every hack’s dream: Presidency of the Cambridge Union, Chairmanship of the Cambridge University Conservative Association and a double first in History and Economics. “I think I probably assumed at that time that I would be involved in politics but I steadily developed the habit of not seeming to be able to stay in one political party.” He now happily sits as a cross bencher in the House of Lords.

But his path, though distinguished, has been rather unusual. Turner has flitted in and out of the private and public sector, though he remembers his time as a director at McKinsey particularly fondly. ‘I hugely enjoyed McKinsey between 1992 and 1995 when I worked on the development of the creation of the consulting business in Eastern Europe and Russia.’ He enjoyed a front row seat watching history unfold, as planned economies transitioned into market economies and experienced the stresses and strains inherent in that.

As chairman of the Financial Services Authority, Turner is again at the forefront of a remarkable period in the history of capitalism. The consequences of the great financial crisis continue to dominate our headlines, and it is this question of high pay in the financial sector which seems to most antagonise the British public. Quite surprisingly, it antagonises Lord Turner too. Though he is open about having enjoyed oversized pay packets while Vice Chairman of Merrill Lynch Europe, he still worries that today’s inequality is greater than the average citizen is willing to tolerate.

‘The legitimacy of a market economy can survive significant differences in pay, but we haven’t seen today’s differences since before WWI!’  The solution to the problem is far from obvious, however, and unfortunately ‘there are no easy public policy levers which lean against it’.

Here at Oxford, the disproportionately large salaries paid by investment banks have drastically changed attitudes to careers among many students. Lord Turner shares the public’s unease. ‘I do have some concerns about too many of the most talented people heading off towards banking. You can’t criticise people for doing that, I would have thought of it myself if that had been the case when I left Cambridge.’

But it’s what the students actually do when they get there which is particularly worrying for Turner. ‘The crucial thing is that as regulators we need to set a regulatory framework so that the industry can only make profit and give high pay out of things which are adequately controlled in risk terms, and are actually socially useful. Before the crisis there was an explosion of some activities in the investment banking arena which were pretty socially useless, and that must be brought under control.’

With so much talk about banking at Britain’s best universities, it begs the question, who on earth is at the FSA? The asymmetry of resources between the banks and their regulators was cited as a major cause of the financial crisis in the US, but the UK is different. ‘We are in a better position than our colleagues in the US because they are deliberately starved of money from legislators who would prefer not to have a strong regulatory authority. Instead, the FSA has not been constrained by public sector pay requirements so we are able to pay some to people higher than for instance civil service grades.’ But this doesn’t mean wages are near equal, as Turner notes: ‘We still pay nothing like the private sector but we are still able to attract people fascinated by the policy role.’

You don’t hear of big bonuses at the FSA, but in all offices which surround its premises in Canary Wharf, you can virtually hear the sound of cash registers ringing. The City’s bonuses certainly increase inequality, but frustratingly it’s not even clear whether they raise performance. Lord Turner continues to ruffle feathers with his stance on performance related pay, and conceded his reservations on the matter, saying, ‘I have severe concerns actually that a lot of what we have done over the past 15 years (on performance related pay) has produced unintended consequences.’

He is of course referring to the distorted incentives the pay structure in much of the financial sector provides for its employees. ‘All options in financial markets have more value the more volatile it is, so the more logical rational selfish person at the top of a company would like to create as much volatility as possible so his shares would pay off.’ Similarly, what we have learned from the downfall of RBS is that many executives judge their success on short term indicators such as the size of the balance sheet, while showing a complete disregard for the long term stability of their institution. The solution proposed by Lord Turner is unadventurous: ‘a more simple and straight forward salary structure’ with a far smaller bonus component. This is typical Turner: progressive, pragmatic.

Lord  Turner is said to be an unpopular man in the City, and I begin to see why when we tackle the hardest issues of financial regulation. How can the FSA keep London competitive and implement adequate regulation? Easily, he says, because ‘the idea everyone will go off to New York is not true’. In fact, he tells me, ‘it was an extremely bad idea to put into the statutory requirements of the regulator that it should have regard to competition issues.’

That’s not to say government should ignore competitiveness altogether, however. ‘It is perfectly legitimate for the Treasury to have an interest in speaking up for an industry’, but regulators should remain independent, Turner argues. While this is a difficult balance to strike, his experiences suggests the FSA is getting the competitive balance just right.

‘What is interesting is that you hear as many banks in the US complaining of the high standards they are being forced to accept compared with their European competitors as you do the other way around. When you hear it on both sides of the Atlantic it makes me feel as though we have got it right and are not allowing this process of regulatory arbitrage to flourish.’

Lord Turner is not just unpopular in the City, but among some journalists and politicians too, who blame the FSA’s regulatory approach before the crisis for its severity. He has accepted that mistakes were made and that ‘any benefit we could have got from a light touch was offset many times over from the disadvantages which came from the crash’.

As Turner tightens regulation at the FSA, he is trying hard to get globally agreed policies, but argues ‘if need be, we should act unilaterally’.  The implementation of the Banking Report by Sir John Vickers was, in a way, a unilateral measure, but Lord Turner points out that ‘a debate is now breaking out in Europe over whether Vickers’ ideas are applicable’. As long as Lord Turner remains at the helm of regulatory policy in the UK, we can be confident that where Britain leads, others will continue to follow.

Within a week of the news that Oxford was to be graced with its very own student tabloid, Rupert Murdoch has released his very own addition to the already burgeoning News International stable. The News of the World’s demise last year has clearly not dampened his enthusiasm, nor that of the British public. Reportedly the print run for the Sun on Sunday was three million copies, with over two million sales expected.

With inquiries into the Sun’s senior staff ongoing, the claim that this resurrected News of the World is a force for good rings deeply hollow. But that’s exactly what Murdoch and his editorial staff maintain. In almost every way they are wrong. The Sun and papers of its kind trivialise real news in favour of gossip, speculation and simplistic dichotomies of complex, difficult issues.

Though we may tell ourselves we’re better off than the those who have to put up with the American media, it’s scant comfort. The celebrity obsessed sensationalism that puts a paragraph long article on a co-ordinated series of explosions in Iraq on a par with whoever’s had their tits done most recently is a grim indictment of our priorities. The revelations about improper and immoral practice – to which even the venerable broadsheets have not been entirely immune – have ceased to surprise. Like bankers and politicians, journalists now belong to a tainted profession.

Contrast that to the phenomenal bravery and sacrifice of correspondents reporting from some of the most desperate places on earth, two of whom were killed last week. These reporters believed in the importance of what they were doing. I have been told that there has never been a famine in a country with a reasonably free press. This is the good that Murdoch was referring to. And this is the small way in which he was right.

His newspapers commit the cardinal sin of mistaking gossip for what is really important. But they do also make a difference. I disagree with their politics, but they do take a stand and they do challenge the status quo. If they have corrupt politicians and dodgy City traders looking over their shoulders thinking “what if the press finds out?”, they are making a positive impact.

Information matters. Freedom of the press matters. Journalism matters. Not because we need to know about Max Mosely’s Nazi-themed orgies. But because investigative work is important in making a difference. Like getting news out of Homs. Like bringing famines and corruption and downright political lying to the world’s attention. Reporters take risks daily to bring this news to us, and we have a responsibility to listen. We are rich, privileged and empowered. Knowing what’s going on beyond your front door is the first step to changing the world.

I did a double take when I was reading the Sunday Times last week, and stumbled across the following words: “Ozzy Osbourne, rock star and Sunday Times columnist.” Front man for heavy metal pioneers Black Sabbath; focal point of reality TV show The Osbournes; bat devourer – these are just some of the images that are conjured up by the name Ozzy Osbourne. But although the list is not exhaustive, I am fairly certain that even if I were to detail every thought that I associate with the Prince of Darkness, ‘Sunday Times columnist’ would not feature.

Mr. Osbourne is not the first person to have attempted to apply the eminently transferable skills of his profession to the world of journalism. Another that springs to mind is footballing bad boy Joey Barton, who graced the pages of the Times not long ago with his insights into… well, himself.

Now I’m not saying that just because a grown man chooses to cultivate his hair so that he looks like Morrisey, he isn’t entitled to displace all those tireless hacks who have struggled to squeeze every ounce of juice out of a fruitless story and invented nonsense to get a scoop, as a writer for one of the most prestigious papers in the country. Nor do I think that the fact that everyone’s favourite Brummy rock star was banned from San Antonio for urinating on a cenotaph, erected in honour of those who died at the Alamo, while drunk and wearing his wife’s dress, means that he isn’t the most qualified person to write a health column for the Sunday Times.

Maybe my seething resentment of those who have conquered their field of expertise and then decided to nonchalantly alight on the pinnacle of another profession is not entirely unrelated to the fact that I now have to endure five weeks with no spleen-venting. I don’t know. What I do know is this. Ozzy, Joey, and all you other success-stories-turned-journalists, do me a favour and keep your two cents to yourselves, so that we real columnists can get on with our job of disparaging those in the public eye who have been far more successful than we could ever hope to be.

Saudi Arabia has this week been the subject of controversy in the West over its failure to field a female team for the Olympics this summer. Tessa Jowell, the former Culture Secretary and Olympics Minister, who is now a member of the Olympic Board, accused the Saudis of ‘clearly breaking the spirit of the Olympic Charter’s pledge to equality’, though she stopped short of calling them to be banned from the Games.

The International Olympic Committee should, however, prove its commitment to the ‘Olympic spirit’ by banning Saudi Arabia from the Games unless it brings women. Sport certainly isn’t the most pressing issue for women’s rights in Saudi Arabia – women of all ages are still required to have a male guardian and cannot travel without one, as well as being banned from driving. Nonetheless, this is one issue that is clear cut. The Olympics, while originating in the West, is a universal movement and it cannot remain so if it continues to allow discrimination on the grounds of sex.

Many Islamic countries only have a recent history of including female athletes in their Olympic teams, with the United Arab Emirates and Oman in 2008. This progress has encouraged the IOC to turn their attention to the final few. Saudi Arabia is one of three countries who have never brought female athletes to the Olympics, with Qatar and Brunei the other two. Under pressure from the IOC, Qatar has announced that it is bringing four female fencers to the games. Brunei, a tiny Muslim South East Asian country of 400,000 people, struggles to find enough athletes anyway. Moreover, advocacy group Human Rights Watch has pointed out that Qatar and Brunei, unlike Saudi Arabia, have previously sent female athletes to competitions like the Islamic Women’s Games and the Asian Games.

Saudi Arabia, meanwhile, has announced that women can join the team if they live abroad. However, this is a token gesture and should be treated as such. A spokesman for the IOC said, “The IOC does not give ultimatums or deadlines, but believes a lot can be achieved through dialogue”, adding that “fruitful discussions” had lead to the three miscreant countries including women in the Youth Olympic Games last summer. Dalma Rushdi Malas was the first female Saudi athlete to compete in an Olympic event, winning a bronze medal for equestrian show jumping.

However, Malas fits the criteria of living abroad and went to the competition at her own expense. It also remains to be seen whether Malas will even get the chance to compete, with the six-strong male team having already qualified for the show jumping event.

More importantly, this gesture does nothing to prove that Saudi Arabia is upholding the Olympic principle of non-discrimination in the country itself. There are private gyms and independent schools with girls sports teams. However, with women unable to drive themselves it is difficult for them to get anywhere to play sport. Human Rights Watch has also found that physical education has never been part of the girls’ curriculum. One woman told the group that a marathon was held a few years ago, but women could only participate if they wore the abaya (a black cloak covering the body from head to toe).

I should mention that I am not saying that Islam is at fault for the Saudis’ discrimination. Saudi Arabia practices a particularly strict form of Sunni Islam, Wahhabism, and many respected scholars of Islam doubt the theological foundations for the gender segregation it imposes. As the Saudis themselves say, “It’s the culture not the religion.”

Yet, care should also be taken when levelling accusations against the Saudis. Alongside the usual Islamophobia bandied about, some have likened the lack of women’s rights in Saudi Arabia to apartheid, and called for the IOC to ban Saudi Arabia like it banned South Africa. They have a point – treating women as second class citizens is essentially no different to treating black people as such. However, aside from the point that Western governments would never label Saudi Arabia as such, given its oil wealth and strategic position in the Middle East, the situation in Saudi Arabia is not black and white.

Advances have been made since King Abdullah ascended the throne in 2005. He included women in diplomatic delegations abroad, and women now have the right to vote and stand as Members of Parliament. This is somewhat contradictory, given that women will still be under male guardianship and need to be driven to work and vote. Nonetheless, this is progress for women’s rights, however small.

Moreover, aside from the powerful Saudi clerics, a large proportion of highly-educated, articulate Saudi women support the current status quo. A recent Gallup poll in eight predominantly Muslim countries found that a majority of Saudi women agreed that women should not hold political office. While I am not a cultural relativist and would like to see women’s rights become universal, this is not somewhere where the idea of rights will take hold naturally. Accusations of Western cultural imperialism are easy to make, and will threaten to erase the small advances that have been made for Saudi women.

Therefore, for the IOC to contribute to this progress it must couch its argument in terms of the Olympic principles, without bringing in pointless accusations of apartheid or the like. The IOC cannot stand by and let Saudi Arabia come to the Olympics without women.