See you all in Copenhagen!

In 2008, Royal Bank of Scotland lost £28bn. Their website reads “Everyday banking, extraordinary service“…. so extraordinary, they lose your money, and then get bailed out…with your money. That is certainly out of the ordinary of usual banking. In October 2008, the UK Government saved the bank from collapse after it’s shockingly misinformed takeover of ABN AMRO in 2007. The Treasury took a 57% share of RBS by 2008. The Government in 2009 was then forced to create a State backed security scheme, to inject a sense of confidence into RBS to convince them to start lending again. In March 2009, RBS then decided to close down it’s “Tax avoidance department” (that’s nice of them!) possibly to make it sound less crooked. Oh, and not forgetting the CEO who ran RBS into the ground, taking home £700,000 pension whilst thousands lost their jobs because of him.
All in all, a shit company, run by shit, greedy people (Thatcherites).

So, it will no doubt surprise you that the EuroFinance Conference 2009 to be held in Copenhagen, is chiefly sponsored by…….Royal Bank of Scotland. When you click on “about the conference” you’re greeted with the rather ironic tagline of “Meet economists, futurists and regulators who will be influencing and shaping your world“. You couldn’t make this shit up. Of course, not content to be sponsored by just one failed, corrupt banking group; EuroFinance Conference is also sponsored this year by Citigroup; famed for receiving $28bn bailout by the U.S Government for it’s piss poor attempt at self regulation, fed by greedy bankers obsessed with short term gain apparently unable to assess the risk that the housing boom may not last forever. And Merrill Lynch; whom according to Bloomberg, have lost up to $51.8 billion in mortgage backed securities since this crises began, this was just before they were saved from collapse by Bank of America and paid out $3.6billion (of taxpayers money) in bonuses.
Not forgetting Barclays, another sponsor of the event. In 2008 Barclays refused UK Government bail out money of £6.5bn preferring to go it alone…….. but then decided it couldn’t possibly go it alone, and so quite horrendously received $8.5bn from AIG in America, which was money that came directly from AIG’s bailout. So, taxpayers own RBS, Merrill Lynch, Citigroup, and a chuck of Barclays. Do we get to go along to this big important luxurious weekend in Copenhagen, given that we paid for it?
Ah the joys of Capitalism. It just keeps getting better.

Are these banks really in any place to be sponsoring a luxurious weekend in Copenhagen, with talks about the future of responsible banking? They shouldn’t even exist, let alone be in this position.

It’s like having a Hospital wing named after Harold Shipman.

We all need somebody

It is relatively easy to see someone struggling, and to say “we all have problems, deal with it“, to dismiss them as lazy. And yet, we all need somebody. Whether we find it difficult to express ourselves with words, or whether we just need a hug and to be told everything will be all right, or whether we need someone to turn to for emotional support, or whether we carry a knife on the street because we’re afraid of the night, or whether we have built up anger, or whether we just don’t have the detailed and incessant aspirations that those destined for success and great wealth seem to have. We appear to ignore those less fortunate, and to spew Western economic theory at them, as if it were binding to all mankind, when it isn’t. We are all different.

It is easy to view humanity as a great money making machine, spirituality is replaced by materialism, the passion of want, striking down the abundance of Community, to pursue our own individualistic goals regardless of the negative affect it may have on somebody somewhere. We work in jobs we hate, we judge people on the expense of their living , we look down at those who are trapped in a meticulous cycle of nothingness. And yet, in reality even those who deal drugs, are the same as all of us. Stuck in grip of Materialism, we are all looking to satisfy our own “wants” regardless of who it hurts. For the majority of us though, we are not directly involved in the exploitation of others, or the degrading of others, we simply wear the Primark clothes, we are not involved in the process, and so we just turn our heads and pretend it’s all happening in the distance, far from us.

It is assumed that the fetish for profit, is simply a force of human nature. But i’m inclined to believe otherwise. I think avarice and self importance and the proponents of this damaging way of thinking, are simply stuck in four walls of the society they we’re born into. We are taught to believe that we’re in life specifically for ourselves, that we’re self promoting monstrous beings, motivated by self interest, whose mind is geared toward the accumulation of as much material wealth as we can possibly get our hands on. If someone appears to be fighting against the flawed notion of individualism, they are merely attacked as being hippy, out of touch, socialist, they want to enslave you, they want to take away your property and give it to the lazy. It’s right winged hysteria at it’s worst. Hedonism is intrinsically woven together with the pursuit of individual wealth rather than the pursuit of the greater good for all. The Right have crafted a society which suits them, in which people must either conform or be labelled Communist, bleeding heart, or hippy. If we start to question why we are plainly dissatisfied with life, society tells us it’s because we don’t have enough materially. Perhaps a new bed will help, perhaps a new TV, perhaps a new car. And yet, when the happiness derived from “more” finally subsides, we’re back to feeling dissatisfied and disillusioned, shouldn’t we be questioning whether society’s notions of extreme wealth linked to happiness and righteousness, are perhaps misplaced?

Shouldn’t the very essence of “want” come after the entire species has the essential elements of “need” fulfilled? Why is liberty considered the right to extreme profit, whilst those who literally die of hunger are collateral; considered a necessary evil for the advancement of “want“? Why isn’t the fulfillment of essential “need” the building blocks of Liberty, the first post that cannot be past until all are equal. The cultivation of an individual’s “wants” should never infringe on the basics “needs” of anyone. The advancement of the culture of “want” is based primarily on playing games with the human characteristics of insecurity and inadequacy. Peace and compassion are not compatible with the World view that human nature is based solely and inherently on self importance and greed. When the World isn’t at war, it cannot be called Peace, whilst millions of people are left to die because the rest of us have an extreme abundance of “need” that we aren’t prepared to share, because sharing would lead to Communist sympathies?

I am inclined to believe that Humanity is not the personification of certain principles, based on greed. The prevailing message through history, whilst each culture has tried to prevent itself from imploding by insisting it is the height of human nature, is compassion.

Scientist Stephan Gould once said:
“History is made by warfare, lust for power, hatred, and xenophobia (with some other, more admirable motives thrown in here and there). We therefore assume that these obviously human traits define our essential nature. How often have we been told that ‘man’ is, by nature, aggressive and selfishly acquisitive?“
And he is correct. This is what we’re told. And yet, it just doesn’t add up. Would society be a detrimental mess, if we were to insist the contrary, that human nature is compassionate and cooperative? It would of course threaten great wealth, but why is that a problem? It is a problem only for those who have acquired great wealth, and who have succumb to the notion that we’re all ruthless monsters. If society truly were about the individual rather than the community, if a helping hand once in a while, a shoulder to lean on, a push in the right direction, were indeed detrimental, then the pillars of society would crumble. Whilst Humanity has the natural tendency to be horribly greedy and uncaring, it also has the overwhelmingly magnificent ability to be compassionate and genial. So why are we focusing on merely one aspect, the killer aspect? We have been conditioned to believe that cooperation, is simply illogical. We perpetuate the myth that human nature is greedy and that any attempt to block that greed, to promote cooperation, is a shot through the heart of our individual Liberties. And yet, we humans have the unique ability to sympathise, to support, and to empathise. We are all genetically connected, and so we are all part of one big family. We are not at odds with each other, adversaries in the great race for profit. We’re family.

I would argue that whilst greed and intense self reliance certainly pushes some to a position of unrivalled power (and thus gives them the power to push their way of thinking onto us all), you cannot force an entire populace to think the same way. When you try to ingrain into the minds of the compassionate, a sense of “me me me” you are the part of the problem, rather than the solution. You are the reason that it is cheaper to make a pill that works to give a middle aged white businessman an erection, than it is to make a pill to treat an African child with AIDs. We are not all greedy, the levels of difference between the extreme of pure selfishness to the extreme of pure altruism is so great from person to person, it is unfair to suggest that humanity on the whole is inherently greedy, whilst punishing and demonising those who do not possess the greedy gene. Charity merely exists in the World of the greedy; why can’t greed exist in the World of the Charity?
Greed is not human nature. Greed is merely a weapon in the search for power and acknowledgement. What if material greed were replaced, and power and acknowledgement were earned through the help given to those who cannot adequately help themselves? Is that some evil Communist notion? If it is, I’d be proud to wear the Communist label.

Human nature is not a choice. You cannot chose to have a specific nature, it just is. And so, if for example, a lady chooses to dedicate her live to helping others; resenting greed, rejecting the notion of incessant “want“; she is not rejecting human nature as such, she is merely acting on a personal trait of compassion and coexistence that is not based on “me me me“. We’d all say that lady is incredibly admirable. Yet, if tomorrow, we were all told by her, that society would now be based around that very same ideal of cooperation and compassion, we’d call her a Socialist. Evil. Trampling on our Rights. Rights that by the way, we invented, to act within the society…. that we created. Those economic rights are not universal and binding, enacted by nature. They are rights enacted by the wealthy few to protect themselves. I’m willing to believe there is more good in the World, more cooperation and compassion, than there is greed and selfishness. Greed is a choice, as is selflessness and cooperation. Neither, is human nature. Satisfying unnecessary “wants” becomes deleterious to satisfying the very necessary “needs” of those less fortunate.

Herman Kumara, head of the National Fisheries Solidarity Movement in a fishing town hit by the tsunami in Sri Lanka wrote “The funds received for the benefit of the victims are directed to the benefit of the privileged few, not to the real victims……… We see this as a plan of action amidst the tsunami crisis to hand over the sea and the coast to foreign corporations and tourism, with military assistance from the US Marines“. To the majority of us, capitalisation on a disaster area seems so horribly immoral, to even suggest it is a trait of human nature, is an insult. It is therefore comforting to know that thousands of charities like Paddle4relief and Unitingtheworld are doing the real work, getting the help to the people who need it, and not thinking about profit to be made in the future.

Greed led to the economic crises we face today. Banks did not care about the obscene debts they were encouraging us all to live on. Greed led to the U.S supporting General Pinochet when it suited them, regardless of his disrespect for human life. Greed has lead to street gangs at war over turf and wealth. Greed has led to illegal wars. Greed has led to the biggest scandal in my estimation the World has ever known – extreme yet unnecessary poverty. Greed led to the MPs expense scandal currently gripping the UK. Greed is so incredibly puerile and useless, it has not had the effect promised to us by successive Governments over the past twenty five years. It has merely created a generation who know no different, and so presume that it’s the only way through life. I reject wholeheartedly that particular notion.

We lose our spiritual connection to those around us, we lose our compassion for each other, we become a line on a map, or a skin colour, or a race, rather than an entire species who certainly need each other regardless of how much money we may have. We lose our philosophical ideas, our freedom to think above and beyond the realm of profit, because our only philosophy now is based solely on greed, and if you disagree, you’re an out of date Socialist with mental issues. We are led to believe that those who are not successful home owners are just lazy, and so don’t deserve our help. We are led to believe that the World is one big resource to be exploited by those who can afford it, regardless of the out come.

In the land of the “free”, The United States would not be the powerhouse it is today if it had relied solely on rugged individualism from it’s conception. The Preemption Act of 1841 and the Homestead Act of 1862 gave away much of the land brought by the California, Texas, Louisianna and Alaska purchases, which is the cornerstone of American success. Community was established when the Government took over lands that were filled with duelling and crime. Historian John Mack Farragher described the American frontiers as “a community experience…“. Big government in the USA then went on, extending social security to ten million more workers during President Eisenhower’s term. It spread to farmers, teachers and dentists among others. Under Eisenhower, the government financed the National highways system. Before that, under Truman, the government passed the G.I Bill of Rights, to provide aid to War veterans for homes and college. It benefited 8 million returning Soldiers, who now went to college and had their mortgages guaranteed; and America benefited economically over the next sixty five years. Anti-polio vaccines, National Institutes of Health and it’s Research and Development, National Defence Education Act, the Internet with it’s origins in the Defence Department, Medicare, integrated school system, Civil rights, and food Administration.
The point being that the strength of a Nation is not solely based on individualism, but on collective responsibility, cooperation, and sympathy. Where the markets fail to provide security and a sense of love and respect, the collectively elected Government, should step in. If it means they raise the highest rate on tax, by a little over 3%, to cope with the unbelievably disastrous equality gap, then all I have to say to the rich few is, tough.

How things change.

We consider those who become homeless to be lazy and primitive, rather than real people with real flaws that need an incredible amount of help to put right. Our hearts become stone and we see everyone else as mechanical money making stepping stones, to reach a goal of “more“. And yet, through it all, regardless of how ruthless we are, how greedy we are, the myth of individualism is so much so that we could not make it through life alone; and so in that sense, we are all that homeless man, we all need somebody.

Teo Te Ching: The normality of selfishness

“Manifest plainness, Embrace simplicity, Reduce selfishness, Have few desires”
- Lao Tzu

I have a deep love for anyone who dedicates their lives or part of their wealth to Charitable causes. People who can freely reject consumerism and embrace humanitarianism full throttle I not only admire, but I envy quite significantly so that it annoys me just how weak I am in rejecting the pointless life I lead now, and embrace the route they take.
Those, like myself, who do little when we know we should do more, I do not have all that much respect for. In fact, they (and by they, I include myself) lead a worthless life.

Often the reason given for the success of Capitalism and the failure of Communism, is that the human race is inherently selfish; driven by our own self interest. And whilst I utterly disagree with that, it has become the centre piece for the argument in support of deregulated free trade. What this argument fails to accept is two points; firstly that with upward mobility increasing it isn’t just down to free markets, it’s also down to Government interference in the markets – the New Deal springs to mind, as well as social aspects like the Civil Rights act; Secondly, given that i’m going along the Taoist line – upward mobility has the opposite of downward mobility. America appears to classify it’s economic dominance by the wealth of the rich. The fact that 40,000,000 people cannot afford Health insurance, which includes 10,000,000 children is largely ignored because whilst those people are allowed to suffer in silence, people like Bill Gates can have $60bn. What is so horribly wrong and offensive when I suggest that we take $30bn of Bill Gates wealth, and spend it purely on feeding those who cannot afford to feed themselves? Let’s truly give everyone the right to life. Because not everyone can afford to be on the relentless trail of profit. Some, just need to eat.

Somewhere along the line, compassion died and the morality of self interest became dominant. Suddenly it isn’t Britain or America’s responsibility to lift millions of Third World citizens out of poverty; to feed them; to clothe them; to protect them. We prefer to turn our heads and blame corrupt governments, forgetting nonchalantly that many of those governments we empowered. We chose to ignore that our Western Companies such as Coca Cola have been poisoning water supplies in poverty stricken areas of India, because the profit gained pleases Western shareholders; who appear to be much more important that a few Indian children. And still, there’s an insistence that this system we live by, is the fairest. It isn’t the fairest, it’s merely because we in the West happen to be lucky enough to have been born where we were born, in relative paradise; taught to exploit whenever the opportunity to advance our wealth presents itself. And suddenly we all think if we try hard enough, we can become Bill Gates, rather than the reality that if we try hard enough, chances are all we’ll be able to do is afford a holiday to Spain twice a year instead of once a year, like before the promotion. That’s it. Every so often, a talent is required, like that of Bill Gates, and that person with that talent, is rewarded monstrously. If we lived in a World where we didn’t need Microsoft, in a World where blogging on a site called futiledemocracy.com were heavily rewarded, Bill Gates’ talent would be useless and mine would be incredibly well cashed up…. and Republicans would be shouting about how fair it is that I cash in on my talent. What if a Bill Gates exists in Sudan right now? What if the man with the idea on how to cure Cancer is born in Kenya tomorrow to an Aids ridden family? Are we really relying on the Western World to produce the most intelligent and brave people?

Today, a close friend of mine rang me up to tell me that she’d just been asked to give to charity, and she turned it down. She doesn’t like to give to charity. She then insisted that she doesn’t have the money to give to charity, yet in the next breath told me she’s been shopping in Primark and later in Subway. She vocalises her submission to consumerism; her pointless existence as if it’s perfectly ok. Which, it isn’t. It isn’t fair. It isn’t moral. It’s wrong. And yet, i’m no different. It’s the reason my room is kitted out with an Xbox 360, a TV, this very PC that I use to thunderously smash my confused fist against the keyboard buttons in order to create meaningless blog entries for Republicans and Conservatives to spew their bullshit over. It’s the reason I have books on by Chomsky, John McCain, Franklin Roosevelt. It’s the reason an episode from my series two Lost DVD is on pause. I spent that money on myself, which went to giant companies; which in turn helped to buy a new yaht and a house in Paradise for the Sir Fred Goodwins of the World. It’s wrong, so very wrong. And whilst I’m a horrible hypocrite for buying into it, i’m slowly trying to dig my way out of it. I don’t want to live a life based on the turd of consumerism. And whilst I have fully bought into the Capitalist system, i’m not somebody who will suggest it’s fair and right; I recognise the harshness and the lies hidden behind the system.

We’re lost Spiritually, because we’re found Materialistically.

My very Philosophy on life is that the less you have, the happier you are. The more you give, the more satisfying the result. Work should be undertaken for the community; everyone should be fed, sheltered, educated, and have a minimal standard of health care across the Planet. The moment anyone dies of extreme poverty, is the moment we all drop the chase for profit, and make sure nobody else can possibly die of extreme poverty. Once the Planet is free from poverty. Once Pharmaceutical companies allow their much needed drugs to be widely available in Countries like Mozambique at the same price as they are available in countries that do not need them like Norway; the moment essential resources of poor nations are not snapped up by European and American businessmen at the expense of the native people; the moment the plundering of resources does not harm any one in the way that Coca Cola harmed the water supply of India; the moment the deaths of 60,000,000 people over the space of five years from nothing more than lack of food is recognised as THE most important and inhumane issue facing civilisation instead of just being completely ignored because it’s more important to make sure a crook controlling AIG keeps his obscene pension – when all this is achieved, and only then, should we be allowed to focus on individual profit. We’re all people, we’re all from the same place, and we’re all going to end up in the same place. Why is it such a taboo to suggest we should work together and help each other?

The very same people who insist that Socialism, the redistribution of wealth, giving “free money” to those who haven’t worked for it, is wrong; then go on to tell me how inheritance tax is despicable. Isn’t inherited wealth just a form of inter-family Socialism? The children haven’t worked for that money. They could potentially inherit millions of dollars and not have to work a day in their lives, whilst the child who was born in the hospital bed next to him, has a family who are unable to leave him much at all. The rich only tend to insult the ideals of Socialism, when it threatens their wealth. Otherwise, they’re all for it. The moment we all realise how hypocritical and dreadfully ignorant we are, the better the chance we have at creating a much more equal and just society.

According to Commondreams.org , the average CEO takes home wages 300 times heavier than their workers. Are those CEOs 300 times more important? Do they work 300 times harder? Now i’m not sure where in the doctrine of fairness, it was written that the wealth created by those workers, was fairly distributed when it went to pay the CEO 300 times more money than themselves but where ever it was, it was wrong. I’d go further, and suggest that this isn’t Capitalism, this is Corporate Communism. It’s a bunch of small Communist companies, in which the bottom of the pit are exploited to feed the extravagances of the top few. It’s the reason that 40% of the World’s wealth is owned by 1% of the population. What if we took 30% of that away from them, and gave it feed the hungry? Why should we wait for people to be charitable? Is 1% of the population earning almost half the wealth of the World, the trickle down affect that Thatcher and Reagan promoted? When is that 40% going to trickle down? Because there’s an entire Continent over the sea called Africa that seems to have been forgotten.

Do I believe my life would be much worse, if I “Manifest plainness, Embrace simplicity, Reduce selfishness, and had few desires“…. no. I don’t believe that humanity is inherently selfish and addicted to the very core of consumerist sentiment so much so that we can’t let go. Nor do I believe that once that consumerist sentiment has burrowed deep within you, is it simple to let go. I’d be the first to admit that i’d struggle with TV, my Wii Fit, a bike, my books, and my PC. I’d struggle hugely. But that doesn’t mean I need all those things. It certainly doesn’t mean I should be free to have those things whilst others die unnecessarily. My greed and my selfishness embodies that of Western society as a whole. We all know consumerism is detremental, we all know that climate change is down to our excessive consumption of green house gases due to the fact that we take the car the short journey down the road because we cannot be arsed to walk; we all know that the food we waste is nothing short of criminal given that millions are dying every year for lack of that food; we all know that whilst we sit in relative luxury we are happy to blindly defend a system that is inherently unfair, unjust, corrupt and murderous by nature….. because to do otherwise, would be hypocritical of us at best, and threaten our luxurious lifestyles at worst.

I believe we’ve all had it drummed into our minds for far too long, generation after generation, told that free market capitalism, exploitation is fair and just. That we should just ignore those less fortunate because it’s probably their fault. We should just turn our heads to the African child dying in the street, because his or her government, who the child has never heard of or seen before is corrupt, that we should embrace it, because the alternative would mean we can’t have that Xbox game we want as the money would go to someone who actually needs it, and for some reason, that would be inexcusably wrong and immoral. It is, in short, utter bullshit, and we all know it, we just don’t all admit it.

Am I embracing my own Philosophy? Practising what I preach? No. Would I complain if a man came to my house, took my Xbox and sold it, then showed by a photo of a child who can now eat because the money he made went to feeding that child? No. I’d nominate that man for a Knighthood. He’s a better man than me.

The Treasury Select Committee strikes

The Treasury Select Committee, as we speak, are destroying questioning former Royal Bank of Scotland Chief Exec. Sir (Sir? What the fuck) Fred Goodwin; former HBOS Chief Exec. Andy Hornby; former RBS Chairman Sir Tom McKillop; and former Chairman of HBOS Lord Stevenson over their absolute greedy destruction of the banking system.

As this is likely to go on for a few days, i’m merely going to comment on some of the comments I heard from them today. All the ‘defendants’ have had weeks of training by experts on how to answer questions that might be put to them, and how to come across to the public. So, predictably, they all apologised for the financial crises. An apology that is deemed all the more ridiculous, by the knowledge that those like Sir Goodwin, have been doing this kind of immoral banking for decades.

After the pointless and well scripted apologies, the bankers were asked by the Select Committee if they felt their banks had lived up to their objective; to safe guard savings and investments. The answer? … “um….well…” They were asked again. The answer? “hmmm. we did not foresee….erm…“. And that was that. I think we can take that as a definite no.

Andy Hornby at HBOS made a point to tell the Committee his bonuses were all invested in shares, and so he’d “lost more money than he’d earned”. I’m not quite sure how this is worked out. His bonus, is merely that; a bonus. That doesn’t affect his £1.6million salary. He’s hardly losing. I’d suggest the word “losing” will be deeply resented among those of us who aren’t in the little circle of bankers.

Amusingly, MP John Mann asked Hornby what the level of JSA for his former staff was likely to be. Hornby looked confused. Hornby then asked what JSA is. Mann had to point out that JSA is job seekers allowance. That benefit money we all have to take, when we’re looking for work, after being shafted by major bankers. Ignorance is bliss for these people.

Asked what they thought of President Obama’s policy to cap the wages of American bail out bankers, the four ‘defendants’ all claimed to know nothing about it. These people know exactly what’s happening. It worries them. They have systematically destroyed many people’s lives, and the result is that their great wealth and power is being threatened, and they don’t like it. It’s the reason they shout “Socialism is coming to America!!!” (clearly they’ve never been to Cuba) the moment another case is made against them.

A reporter on Fox News said yesterday “The American people don’t like this new breed of change“. He was countered by another who rightly stated “There was an election for this exact change less than three months ago“. What the ‘people’ don’t want, is a return to the failed policies of the Right Wing that has lead to these bankers being allowed to do what they’re doing. It doesn’t work. It quite evidentally, hasn’t worked. Those of us who aren’t in bitter denial that our ideology has been proven to be an utter mess, are happy that we have Obama on board to support our values. “Socialism” wouldn’t have to be brought to America if the “Capitalists” had acted responsibly in the first place. Republicans can’t bring themselves to accept this. Even their British Counterparts, the Conservative Party had accepted it in part, by distancing themselves from Thatcher recently. It amazes me that the Republicans still have the nerve to claim they know how to deal with this mess better than anyone else. If they knew, why didn’t they stop it happening? They’ve had eight years!!! Why suddenly now do they have the answers? Why are they trying to put their own fire out, with more fire?

All of the defendants claimed that they had “not seen just how serious this crises would eventually become”.… Which suggests they aren’t really as good at what they do as their multi million pound salaries would have us believe. Another claim made by those who still cling to the notion that the free deregulated market is so wondrous,was made by Sir Fred Goodwin, who said if “the best bankers felt they were not paid enough, they would leave.” This was an attempt to justify their salaries and bonuses. Now, two problems. Firstly, you don’t have the best bankers. If these are the best we have, god help up. Secondly, if another bank wants to employ a banker who has destroyed the previous bank he worked for, at a higher wage!!!… then more fool them. I’m quite happy to take a quarter of that £1.6million wage, to fuck up their company.That’d be great. It pleases me to know that these greedy bastards are wriggling their way out of it, because we all know it’s bullshit on their part.

When accused by the MPs as living for the good times and ignoring all criticism, in a culture of greed and materialism, Sir Fred Goodwin stated quite amusingly “led the bank in a responsible fashion“. Well that’s reassuring.

It was also revealed that Andy Thornby, since leaving HBOS, has taken a £60,000 a month job as a consultant…..for Lloyds TSB… the company that took over HBOS. The MPs rightfully pointed out that he could pay the salaries of 36 of his low-paid staff that have lost their jobs at HBOS because of his utter uselessness for that amount. They asked “Why is failure being rewarded? Why are you still getting this money?” £60,000 a month! He should be in prison, not allowed such high wages. It amazes me that they do not fully comprehend just what they have done.Thornby then went on to say that HBOS had over 100 years of experiance and high quality risk management under their belts. Yeah…. how’s that worked out for you?

Lord Stevenson, of HBOS, the UKs biggest mortgage lender, claimed that they did not see the collapse of the property price coming. Which must just please the shareholders over at HBOS, that with the mighty levels of responsibility HBOS has as the leading UK mortgage lender, haven’t really been accepted.

A few months after Goodwin at RBS acquired Natwest, he axed 18,000 jobs. A month later, RBS bought a new £17.5million private jet. Now at the risk of sounding as Conservatives and Republicans would suggest, a “socialist“, i’d say that people and those jobs that were axed, are far more morally important than Goodwin’s “right” to buy a new £17.5million Private Jet. He lives in a World far away from the majority of us.

One of the biggest revelations today, was that a risk assessment officer working at RBS was sacked for suggesting bad times ahead. He told the bankers to “slow down” and that there was going to be problems in the future if they carried on. This was four years ago. He then took RBS to court for unfair dismissal and won. However, a gagging order was placed on him. He was not allowed to talk about why he was sacked. He was in short, silenced. He was then replaced in his role by a friend of the chairman who had absolutely no training or qualifications to be a risk assessment officer, but as previously stated, was a friend of the chairman. She didn’t deliver the same damning verdict as her predecessor. She was given a bonus. The company then pretty much collapsed, just as her predecessor had forseen.

They spent the first ten minutes of the proceedings apologising “sincerely” and that they took full responsibility. The next two and a half hours they spent telling us it wasn’t them after all. It strikes me as utterly contemptuous that these people who are living quite luxuriously off the bail out money from tax payers, can then repossess the homes of the people who have just helped pay for their next luxury holiday. How is this ‘fair’ capitalism? Yes they should apologise. They should spend three hours on their knees apologising. They should offer to give large sums of their personal wealth to the people who are no struggling to survive. That would truly should just how sorry they are. Instead, they’re so sorry, they’re going to leave the Select Committee, and head to a lovely beach somewhere on tax payers money, after taking their private jet paid for at the expense of 18,000 jobs. And this is a fair system? Get a grip on reality.

Thornby, who kept insisting he’d not seen a penny of his bonuses because he’d invested them in shares spoke as if that was a good thing. As if he did that out of the kindness of his heart. The reason he invested those bonuses, was purely to make more money, on top of the bonuses. To make if you will, a bonus out of a bonus. Isn’t that the legacy of one big greedy culture that was swept the Western World over the past thirty years. To then try to suggest that it’s an admirable thing, is ridiculous.

For the past hour, the bankers have all suggested it’s too easy for us to blame them; that actually the Government is to blame, and that the FSA is to blame. The collapse of the wholesale market is to blame. Everybody but themselves. Like children having a tantrum. The product of the Thatcherite era of deregulation and the flawed notion that leaving it to the professionals is the way forward. Thatcher famously exclaimed “There is no such thing as society“. Promoting self interest and greed. Echoes of the future, it would seem.

We already know!

So it would seem, that last week in British Politics became decidedly boring. This in turn, meant the BBC had very little to report. Which meant, it’s editors were forced to submit articles to the Politics section of the BBC News website, that appear to have been posted by Captain Obvious.

Take this article, referring to the leader of the Liberal Democrat’s Nick Clegg’s claims on the Andrew Marr show, that The Tories offer nothing different to pull Britain through tough economic change.
Clegg is quoted as saying … “I don’t believe for a moment that a Conservative government will take radical action to make the tax system fairer.” … As if we didn’t already know this. Firstly, they aren’t called Conservatives for no reason. Radical isn’t really in their vocabulary. Secondly, when the word “Radical” does breach Conservative Security, the Country ends up with a Thatcher. I cannot imagine anyone in the Country other than the greedy bankers she spawned, would want to see radical Conservatives again.
Clegg wasn’t finished with the obvious statements. He went on to suggest that a Tory Government would not help those on middle or lower incomes. Again, did he really need to make that point? Does anyone seriously believe a Conservative Government who have pledged to simply do nothing productive for the less advantaged in Society during this long horrible recession, are the best choice for those struggling the most?
The Conservative Party Website says… “Our welfare programme will be delivered by private and voluntary providers, who will only be paid when someone gets and keeps a job.
Combined with our commitment to end the couple penalty in the tax credits system, our radical welfare plans will help lift almost half a million children out of poverty.”…. Private Welfare? Delivered by those out for profit? Not only can I see that pushing more people into poverty given that they pledge to not raise minimum wage, but I foresee that parents will feel forced to work longer hours, meaning that work becomes more important than family. The Tories will never help poor families. We do not need Mr Clegg to point that out.

Late 2008, Goldman Sachs asked for a $7,000,000,000 bail out. They put $6,000,000,000 aside for bonuses, according to The Guardian. It defended it’s bonuses by suggesting bonuses are needed to attract the best people. The best people, who seemingly lost £1.4bn for the fourth-quarter of 2008. I’m quite happy to lose that much money for a company, if it means a hefty bonus at the end. Bring it on.
Similarly, according to The Daily Mail, between 2003 and 2007, Sir Fred Goodwin, boss of Rbos received £15.5million in pay and bonuses, and Eric Daniels of Lloyds TSB received £10.2million.
The housing market boom, seeing prices pushed for modest properties, way beyond the £1million mark, is estimated to have been worth an incredible £5.5bn according to Savills, in London, by City Bonus buyers alone. Greed. Nothing more than pure Greed. So why has it taken so long for an MP to stand up and critise this greed culture. Lord Myners told The Times, that “The golden days of huge bonuses are over” and that “grossly over-rewarded” executives must shoulder some of the blame for the global recession. In short, right winged economic policy, the concept that deregulated… “the markets will save the World!!” is so horribly overestimating the power of the greedy minority who rule the World. Lord Myners went on to uncover himself as Captain Obvious, with this “Let us be quite clear: there has been mismanagement of our banks.” No shit.

Whenever I watch Parliament, in particular Prime Minister’s Questions, it strikes me as inconceivable how little Parliament is actually allowed to scrutinise Whitehall. It does not matter how many time the Prime Minister is asked a question, he will never answer it truthfully, and he will try his very hardest to sneak around the question. And yet, The BBC seems to think it’s a story worth telling that the Prime Minister wont answer MPs questions adequately. As if it’s shocking. As if we didn’t already know they do this. According to the BBC citing The Ministerial Code, Members of the Government should be…….” as open as possible with Parliament and the public, refusing to provide information only when disclosure would not be in the public interest“…. and yet quite evidently, they aren’t, in fact, they couldn’t be further from that rule if they tried.
We know that Labour is incredibly out of touch, we know that they have very little support, we know they do themselves very little favours when they try to block calls for more transparency and scrutiny, like the full disclosure of MPs allowances under the Freedom of Information act, which Harriet Harman has been using the most ridiculous legal jargon to postpone quite tragically for Democracy, as long as possible. But it goes even deeper into the realms of the hypocritical and ridiculous when Labour’s Deputy commons leader Chris Bryant tells the BBC that openness is vital in Parliament.
Norman Baker goes on to, according to the BBC “accuse Mr Brown of using stock excuses to avoid answering questions“. Is this really a story? The entire country knows just how slimey Politicians are when it comes to the truth. You just have to sit watching Prime Ministers questions to know this.

Captain Obvious has been busy, neatly suggesting that the title of this blog “futile Democracy” isn’t as radical a claim as first may seem.