So the Government has taken control of my bank, one that was perfectly 'sound' prior to Gordon Brown's 'decisive action' in trying to rescue a Scottish bank that had ignored some basic banking principles.
All we hear now, almost on a daily basis, is Gordon Brown promising to do everything for 'hard working families and Alistair Darling trying to get 'banks lending again'. Today, on the news of the Government taking a 65 per cent stake in Lloyds, is Stephen Timms, Treasury Minister, commenting on the fact that taxpayers could lose up to £100bn on the deal saying "We don't know".
Can some economist out there please explain to me why Gordon Brown and Alistair Darling should believe they are qualified to solve this mess? I am at a loss to understand how anyone, whose sole academic achievement would seem to be a PhD in History or who only has a legal background can suddenly become financial 'experts' - which is probably the reason the country got into this mess in the first place! At least Stephen Timms appears to have an MA in Mathematics, so presumably he can add two and two and arrive at the correct answer - one can but hope!
If Gordon Brown really, really wants to do everything in his power to 'help hard working families' the answer is extremely simple.
Just resign Gordon - job done!
Saturday, 7 March 2009
Now Is The Time for Truth
Referring back to a post earlier today, part of that earlier post by Prodicus contained the following:
"nightly screaming at the TV set for someone, anyone, to challenge this dangerously flailing government, take it upon themselves to complain in somewhat less dignified ways."
Peter Oborne, in an article in the Mail today, makes the point that David Cameron has to now make sure he presents himself as a future Prime Minister.
Linking the two points together; namely 'someone, anyone, to challenge this dangerously flailing government' and 'present himself as a future Prime Minister', one has to ask whether David Cameron has (a) the nous and (b) the capability?
Whilst in no way intimating that David Cameron is dishonest, will he have the honesty to 'level' with the electorate, not only on the impending cuts to public services and the public sector which will surely have to be made but also will he be 'open' and 'honest' about the question that in certain areas his ability to act is constrained by our membership of the European Union, will he be honest in admitting that as Prime Minister he will not be able to 'govern' this country as he would wish for the same reason, will he be honest and admit that the severity of any cuts he makes would not have to be so severe were not untold billions paid annually to the European Union?
The concern that Peter Oborne raises in respect of Cameron being accused of 'talking down the country' is, I would contend, neither here nor there. There cannot be anyone in the country, other than the Government, who does not know and realise that Britain is 'on its knees'.
The point is this: What a pleasant change it would be for a politician, any politician, to talk to the electorate in plain English, rather than 'politicspeak' which is 'waffle', and at the same time with honesty.
Can pigs fly................
Afterthought: Actually there is one politician that does use plain, simple, honest English and not enough people listen. The mans name? Nigel Farage.
"nightly screaming at the TV set for someone, anyone, to challenge this dangerously flailing government, take it upon themselves to complain in somewhat less dignified ways."
Peter Oborne, in an article in the Mail today, makes the point that David Cameron has to now make sure he presents himself as a future Prime Minister.
Linking the two points together; namely 'someone, anyone, to challenge this dangerously flailing government' and 'present himself as a future Prime Minister', one has to ask whether David Cameron has (a) the nous and (b) the capability?
Whilst in no way intimating that David Cameron is dishonest, will he have the honesty to 'level' with the electorate, not only on the impending cuts to public services and the public sector which will surely have to be made but also will he be 'open' and 'honest' about the question that in certain areas his ability to act is constrained by our membership of the European Union, will he be honest in admitting that as Prime Minister he will not be able to 'govern' this country as he would wish for the same reason, will he be honest and admit that the severity of any cuts he makes would not have to be so severe were not untold billions paid annually to the European Union?
The concern that Peter Oborne raises in respect of Cameron being accused of 'talking down the country' is, I would contend, neither here nor there. There cannot be anyone in the country, other than the Government, who does not know and realise that Britain is 'on its knees'.
The point is this: What a pleasant change it would be for a politician, any politician, to talk to the electorate in plain English, rather than 'politicspeak' which is 'waffle', and at the same time with honesty.
Can pigs fly................
Afterthought: Actually there is one politician that does use plain, simple, honest English and not enough people listen. The mans name? Nigel Farage.
Bland Mili Nearly Right
Our 'not-so-revered'* Foreign Secretary states in the Telegraph today "Pakistan is facing a 'mortal threat' from internal enemies".
Substitute Britain for Pakistan and, just for once, he hits the nail on the head.
The 'mortal threat' is caused by the 'internal enemy' that is New Labour!
Substitute Britain for Pakistan and, just for once, he hits the nail on the head.
The 'mortal threat' is caused by the 'internal enemy' that is New Labour!
Friday, 6 March 2009
Abuse Of Parliament - Abuse Of The Electorate
Prodicus posted yesterday a sense of despair about the present Government and the contempt of Parliament it exhibits, coupled with the lack of opposition from the Conservative Party; in so doing stating what I believe most people are thinking. As Douglas Carswell has noted, politicians have recently spent more time debating their expenses and addresses than they have discussing the state of the country and its economy. Having read Dominic Grieve's speech, giving the Lord Smith lecture, it is apparent that he does not understand either what is wrong with this country and the present system under which we are governed. It is often said that politicians live in the 'Westminster Bubble' - they certainly do not live in ours! It should be noted that Members of Parliament are ordinary members of the public, elected to represent their fellow countrymen and the moment they cease to be that they lose their moral mandate. No MP should have any right, other than being able to speak freely in the Chamber of Parliament without fear of a libel suit, than any member of the public..
It is obvious that politicians, of all hues, believe that they are the 'chosen' ones, that only they have the ability, even the 'right', to inform us, dare I say dictate, what is for our good. Politicians forget one basic fact in all their utterances and that is they are elected by us to do our bidding, yet come election time they present manifestos to the electorate containing statements of intent so loosely worded that the effect is to give them 'carte blanche' as to how those intentions are implemented. Not only that but manifestos are, presently, documents that try to 'hoodwink' the electorate by 'glossing over' or even 'hiding' some basic facts. As an example all three main parties pontificate about the need to control immigration, waste and energy and produce their 'answer' to the problem; yet not one will say that their hands are tied due to our membership of the European Union.
Whilst on the subject of political manifestos and to underline the point of their being 'loosely worded', consider this question in relation to all those of the three main political parties. Did one of them offer you an answer to your questions - would it enable you to send your child to the school of your choice; would it mean more police on the streets; would you be able to stop unwanted or unpopular local development. Politicians have abrogated their responsibilities to government bureaucrats, quangos and to the European Union; in fact to everyone except those that matter Is it any wonder therefore that politicians are held in contempt by the electorate? Come to that, the question has to be asked - what business is it of national politicians how an individuals child is educated or whether a locale should have a large supermarket development? Should not those questions be for the individual in the particular area in which they live? Remember the words of Sir Humphrey Appleby, in Yes, Prime Minister that "If the right people don't have power, do you know what happens? The wrong people get it....... Councillors! Ordinary People!"
In his speech Dominic Grieve talks a great deal about freedom and maintains that whilst freedom is essential, there needs to be 'checks and balances' and it is up to the state (politicians) to provide them. He talks about the creation of a 'Bill of Rights and Responsibilities' to 'better help define ECHR prescriptions'. What is this 'Bill of Rights and Responsibilities' if not yet another document, issued by an employed 'privileged class', telling their employers how they should act and behave? What is the point of such a document stating 'Rights and Responsibilities' if it would result in this country still being capable of being over-ruled by foreign judges? The repeal of the Human Rights Act which incorporated the European Convention of Human Rights into British law coupled with the simultaneous abrogation of the Convention itself is what is needed.
Members of Parliament are too powerful and too numerous. It is interesting that the US House of Representatives administer a population nearly six times that of the United Kingdom with just 435 members! Members of Parliament should be elected with a mandate to safeguard our country's interests in the areas of international relations, defense, immigration and to maybe set standards of education, healthcare and policing. How the implementation and provision of those internal mattes is carried out is the choice of local people. Earlier it was noted that MPs are elected to represent their constituents, yet how often do they do that? Too often, when casting a vote in Parliament, they are voting for party rather than those they are supposed to represent. Consider, an MP in a 'safe' seat, ie with an impregnable majority, can ignore his constituents, however he cannot ignore his Party Whip to the point where he loses his right to stand for election. Members of Parliament are elected for a set period, during which time they can basically do as they please. A mechanism needs to be introduced whereby MPs who do not represent their constituents can be 'brought back', before the mandatory period, to answer for their actions - now that would be democratic!
Politicians repeat the mantra that society needs to be changed - sorry, it is the democratic system that needs to be changed, so that power actually reverts the people!
It is obvious that politicians, of all hues, believe that they are the 'chosen' ones, that only they have the ability, even the 'right', to inform us, dare I say dictate, what is for our good. Politicians forget one basic fact in all their utterances and that is they are elected by us to do our bidding, yet come election time they present manifestos to the electorate containing statements of intent so loosely worded that the effect is to give them 'carte blanche' as to how those intentions are implemented. Not only that but manifestos are, presently, documents that try to 'hoodwink' the electorate by 'glossing over' or even 'hiding' some basic facts. As an example all three main parties pontificate about the need to control immigration, waste and energy and produce their 'answer' to the problem; yet not one will say that their hands are tied due to our membership of the European Union.
Whilst on the subject of political manifestos and to underline the point of their being 'loosely worded', consider this question in relation to all those of the three main political parties. Did one of them offer you an answer to your questions - would it enable you to send your child to the school of your choice; would it mean more police on the streets; would you be able to stop unwanted or unpopular local development. Politicians have abrogated their responsibilities to government bureaucrats, quangos and to the European Union; in fact to everyone except those that matter Is it any wonder therefore that politicians are held in contempt by the electorate? Come to that, the question has to be asked - what business is it of national politicians how an individuals child is educated or whether a locale should have a large supermarket development? Should not those questions be for the individual in the particular area in which they live? Remember the words of Sir Humphrey Appleby, in Yes, Prime Minister that "If the right people don't have power, do you know what happens? The wrong people get it....... Councillors! Ordinary People!"
In his speech Dominic Grieve talks a great deal about freedom and maintains that whilst freedom is essential, there needs to be 'checks and balances' and it is up to the state (politicians) to provide them. He talks about the creation of a 'Bill of Rights and Responsibilities' to 'better help define ECHR prescriptions'. What is this 'Bill of Rights and Responsibilities' if not yet another document, issued by an employed 'privileged class', telling their employers how they should act and behave? What is the point of such a document stating 'Rights and Responsibilities' if it would result in this country still being capable of being over-ruled by foreign judges? The repeal of the Human Rights Act which incorporated the European Convention of Human Rights into British law coupled with the simultaneous abrogation of the Convention itself is what is needed.
Members of Parliament are too powerful and too numerous. It is interesting that the US House of Representatives administer a population nearly six times that of the United Kingdom with just 435 members! Members of Parliament should be elected with a mandate to safeguard our country's interests in the areas of international relations, defense, immigration and to maybe set standards of education, healthcare and policing. How the implementation and provision of those internal mattes is carried out is the choice of local people. Earlier it was noted that MPs are elected to represent their constituents, yet how often do they do that? Too often, when casting a vote in Parliament, they are voting for party rather than those they are supposed to represent. Consider, an MP in a 'safe' seat, ie with an impregnable majority, can ignore his constituents, however he cannot ignore his Party Whip to the point where he loses his right to stand for election. Members of Parliament are elected for a set period, during which time they can basically do as they please. A mechanism needs to be introduced whereby MPs who do not represent their constituents can be 'brought back', before the mandatory period, to answer for their actions - now that would be democratic!
Politicians repeat the mantra that society needs to be changed - sorry, it is the democratic system that needs to be changed, so that power actually reverts the people!
Why Bother The Banks?
Raedwald has a comment on his blog today.
Basically, he points out that over the next three months the Bank of England is printing an extra £25bn a month. This he reckons is £830m a day and on the basis that there are 43m voters means we are 'handing over' £18.40 a day and questions why we could not be given that direct?
On the basis that we would be cutting out the 'middle man' - why not print just a few more notes and make it £20?
Basically, he points out that over the next three months the Bank of England is printing an extra £25bn a month. This he reckons is £830m a day and on the basis that there are 43m voters means we are 'handing over' £18.40 a day and questions why we could not be given that direct?
On the basis that we would be cutting out the 'middle man' - why not print just a few more notes and make it £20?
Open Europe
In the Open Europe press summary today are a couple of interesting statements which deserve comment.
Firstly Graham Watson, leader of the Liberal Democrat MEPs in the European Parliament, states that Ireland should be asked to leave the EU if they vote NO for a second time.
Oh that we could be asked for a first time!
In the same paper it is noted that the Commission has given the go-ahead for a major face-lift of Brussels European quarter, with work due to start in 2011.
Why wait till 2011 to build a pig sty with a load of troughs? We have a ready-made one here you can have - its called Westminster! After all, you run our bloody country - you may as well come and use it!
Firstly Graham Watson, leader of the Liberal Democrat MEPs in the European Parliament, states that Ireland should be asked to leave the EU if they vote NO for a second time.
Oh that we could be asked for a first time!
In the same paper it is noted that the Commission has given the go-ahead for a major face-lift of Brussels European quarter, with work due to start in 2011.
Why wait till 2011 to build a pig sty with a load of troughs? We have a ready-made one here you can have - its called Westminster! After all, you run our bloody country - you may as well come and use it!
2009 Keith Joseph Lecture - Peter Osborne
Well worth reading and can be found here.
Only one point of contention in what Peter Osborne says:
"Britain is not a public company, and nor is it run by the mafia".
First statement arguable - second statement definitely untrue!
Only one point of contention in what Peter Osborne says:
"Britain is not a public company, and nor is it run by the mafia".
First statement arguable - second statement definitely untrue!
There may be hope
Andrew Pierce in the Telegraph makes a good point and in so doing instils an element of hope for the country, nay for the world.
Noting that Gordon Brown must have felt great relief as the first of his 19 standing ovations rippled across Congress, Andrew imagines Iain Duncan Smith felt the same way when his party conference speech in 2003 was punctuated by 18 ovations.
Three weeks later.....................
Noting that Gordon Brown must have felt great relief as the first of his 19 standing ovations rippled across Congress, Andrew imagines Iain Duncan Smith felt the same way when his party conference speech in 2003 was punctuated by 18 ovations.
Three weeks later.....................
Cut It Out Mr. Putin!
Again from the print edition of the Telegraph a headline which reads 'Russia to ban dissent over Stalin's memory'.
Vlad, would you mind just concentrating on matters 'chez vous'?
If we wish to remember the most reviled, incompetent, narrow-minded and misguided 'saviour of the world' who has, through a quirk of fate, been our Prime Minister, then that is our right and nowt to do with you. Understand?
Vlad, would you mind just concentrating on matters 'chez vous'?
If we wish to remember the most reviled, incompetent, narrow-minded and misguided 'saviour of the world' who has, through a quirk of fate, been our Prime Minister, then that is our right and nowt to do with you. Understand?
Cure For Scurvy Older Than First Thought?
I see in the Telegraph print edition that a cure for scurvy was found years earlier than previously thought, by a woman. A newly discovered book written by Ebot Mitchell in 1707 includes a remedy of plant extracts and orange juice, 46 years before physician James Lind realised vitamin C could cure the condition. One of the characteristics of the disease is the opening of previously healed wounds.
Doesn't seem to work viz-a-viz Labour Governments - does it?
Doesn't seem to work viz-a-viz Labour Governments - does it?
Fatuous Journalism & Bankers
'23 per cent of Britons are saving nothing' - headline in the print edition of the Telegraph, whose sales have just slumped by 5.16 per cent.
In the article Andy McQueen, savings director at Nationwide, says "We're very concerned that, since we started monitoring the savings habits of the UK last year, the importance consumers put on saving has been falling."
And this man is a banker? Look Andy-Pandy, how many tens of thousands of pounds of debt are we, each, now responsible for? How do you expect us to save and what with?
In the article Andy McQueen, savings director at Nationwide, says "We're very concerned that, since we started monitoring the savings habits of the UK last year, the importance consumers put on saving has been falling."
And this man is a banker? Look Andy-Pandy, how many tens of thousands of pounds of debt are we, each, now responsible for? How do you expect us to save and what with?
Its Only Money!
Richard North, on EUReferendum, highlights the cost of 'Galileo' - the EU's Flying Pig idea - in relation to a question asked by Lord Stoddard and bewails the fact that he, Richard, reckons it will cost £500 million up to 2013.
Hey Richard, its only money and the government just prints it when necessary! Whats your problem?
Hey Richard, its only money and the government just prints it when necessary! Whats your problem?
Brown & Mandelson Go Green
So Gordon Brown thinks he can create 400,000 new jobs, over the next eight years, by means of an international 'green new deal'. So that will be 400,000 new jobs for British workers then, Gordon?
Let us leave aside, for the moment, the fact that this whole exercise is but the ways and means of carrying out the environmental policies of his masters in Brussels, there does not appear to be much 'detail' how this will be done. Needless to say there is also a quote from the head quangocrat at the Renewable Energy Association, PhilipWolfe, backing up his 'paymaster - aka Gordon Brown.
Where does Peter Mandelson come into this? Oh it seems he has taken to 'wearing' green custard! It must be in doubt, surely, that green is not his colour.
For example, in view of his 'cowardice' in not admitting that his 'part-privatisation' of Royal Mail was solely due to the need for adherence to EU diktats, it should be mandatory that he reverts to the original colour of custard - preferably in a streak down the middle of his back!
Let us leave aside, for the moment, the fact that this whole exercise is but the ways and means of carrying out the environmental policies of his masters in Brussels, there does not appear to be much 'detail' how this will be done. Needless to say there is also a quote from the head quangocrat at the Renewable Energy Association, PhilipWolfe, backing up his 'paymaster - aka Gordon Brown.
Where does Peter Mandelson come into this? Oh it seems he has taken to 'wearing' green custard! It must be in doubt, surely, that green is not his colour.
For example, in view of his 'cowardice' in not admitting that his 'part-privatisation' of Royal Mail was solely due to the need for adherence to EU diktats, it should be mandatory that he reverts to the original colour of custard - preferably in a streak down the middle of his back!
Slump Of MP's Own Making?
Whilst true, of course, that some overpaid bankers took excessive risks (100%plus mortgages and oh, how many times salary do you want?) coupled with similar risks which should never have been allowed; it now seems that politicians and their friends in the media are busy trying to pin the blame for the economic crisis solely on 'greedy bankers'.
Politicians of all parties, but especially those of the opposition, are supposed to hold the government to account and 'oversee' the governments actions; something which seems noticeable by its absence, in particular as the regulations to stop idiotic behaviour by banks etc exist.
What is interesting, as Douglas Carswell points out, is that politicians appear to have spent more time arguing over their expenses and addresses than they have discussing 'quantative easing', aka printing more money.
As for the last point - just a non-financial thought..........
Politicians of all parties, but especially those of the opposition, are supposed to hold the government to account and 'oversee' the governments actions; something which seems noticeable by its absence, in particular as the regulations to stop idiotic behaviour by banks etc exist.
What is interesting, as Douglas Carswell points out, is that politicians appear to have spent more time arguing over their expenses and addresses than they have discussing 'quantative easing', aka printing more money.
As for the last point - just a non-financial thought..........
Thursday, 5 March 2009
Local Government Pension Scheme
Following my post earlier today on the subject of the above, I thought it well worth asking of my local councillors the following:
According to The Taxpayers Alliance, in a recent report, there are 13 councillors from West Oxfordshire District Council enrolled in/on the Local Government Pensions Scheme. The report also intimated that a councillors role is 'part time' in nature.
I would therefore be grateful if you would advise:
(a) whether you are enrolled in/on the LGPS
(b) if yes to (a) whether this is declared on the register of members interests
(c) how many hours (per week - average) you spend on council business.
I promptly received back a response from one councillor (Cabinet member) - no intro, no signature - "Who are you?"
I thought - Bloody Cheek! So responded:
Dear Councillor ...........,
A resident and taxpayer of this district - next question?
Regards,
.......... ................
And I'm still damned annoyed!!
Update (1950): 'Huffy' reply received with an answer to questions (a) and (b)!
According to The Taxpayers Alliance, in a recent report, there are 13 councillors from West Oxfordshire District Council enrolled in/on the Local Government Pensions Scheme. The report also intimated that a councillors role is 'part time' in nature.
I would therefore be grateful if you would advise:
(a) whether you are enrolled in/on the LGPS
(b) if yes to (a) whether this is declared on the register of members interests
(c) how many hours (per week - average) you spend on council business.
I promptly received back a response from one councillor (Cabinet member) - no intro, no signature - "Who are you?"
I thought - Bloody Cheek! So responded:
Dear Councillor ...........,
A resident and taxpayer of this district - next question?
Regards,
.......... ................
And I'm still damned annoyed!!
Update (1950): 'Huffy' reply received with an answer to questions (a) and (b)!
Hastings - The One In The Mail, Not Sussex
With the news that ACAS has 'mediated' an increase in pay, of 2.75 percent, for some local authority workers, comes an interesting article by Max Hastings, writing in the Daily Mail.
One delicious quote:
"Gordon Brown's most pernicious legacy as Chancellor is that he has burdened the shrinking profit-making part of the economy with an unsustainable commitment to the privileges of State employees, whom he recruited in industrial quantities."
One delicious quote:
"Gordon Brown's most pernicious legacy as Chancellor is that he has burdened the shrinking profit-making part of the economy with an unsustainable commitment to the privileges of State employees, whom he recruited in industrial quantities."
Those Pesky Public Sector Pensions
For some time it has been apparent to those of us with a brain that public sector pensions are a fast increasing debt on taxpayers.
Via The Taxpayes Alliance I note that Dame Jane Roberts, chair of the commission tasked with breathing new life into local politics has spoken of her disappointment that relatively few councillors have joined the Local Government Pension Scheme.
The TPA report showing how many councillors in each local authority have joined the scheme can be viewed here.
Nice to note that some numpty is willing to see the debt to taxpayers increase even more!
Via The Taxpayes Alliance I note that Dame Jane Roberts, chair of the commission tasked with breathing new life into local politics has spoken of her disappointment that relatively few councillors have joined the Local Government Pension Scheme.
The TPA report showing how many councillors in each local authority have joined the scheme can be viewed here.
Nice to note that some numpty is willing to see the debt to taxpayers increase even more!
Wednesday, 4 March 2009
Responsibility And Accountability?
Just come across this from the Communities and Local Government website.
Laying the regulations, Local Government Minister John Healey said:
"Councillors' utmost concern should be to provide the best possible governance for local people, and in the run up to unitary transition this is more important than ever. These regulations will ensure that despite the change in local governance incumbent councillors will remain accountable for their actions and face the full consequences of inappropriate behaviour. Just because they will no longer represent their electorate, doesn't mean that they will be let of the hook if residents raise allegations about their past conduct once their post ends.''
On the basis that 'what is good for the goose' etc - does this principle also apply to Labour MPs and the Labour Government regarding 'let off the hook'?For ThoseThat Don't Read The Comments Section
Bit of self-promotion....................
JuliaM has a post about 'Google Ads' and its shortcomings, her post reporting that at the end of a story telling about how a drunken woman bit off her boyfriends tongue, google ads inserted at the end. 'tongue and groove panelling'.
I could not resist the comment, 'Ah, a new term for oral sex'!
JuliaM has a post about 'Google Ads' and its shortcomings, her post reporting that at the end of a story telling about how a drunken woman bit off her boyfriends tongue, google ads inserted at the end. 'tongue and groove panelling'.
I could not resist the comment, 'Ah, a new term for oral sex'!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
