The World has gone mad

The World is seriously losing the plot. Firstly, The E.U Parliament gains it’s first two Nazi BNP members. Said day for British Democracy indeed. Secondly, the news reported by the Sunday Telegraph, that Alliance Boots have taken on Andy Hornby as their new Chief Executive.

When I went 4p overdrawn late last year, Lloyds charged me £15 for the privilege. Plus, £6 a day, until I paid it back. I got the letter informing me I’d gone overdrawn, two days later, and so with the daily charge, another £12 on top of the £15. I went into Lloyds to speak to the manager. I had 4p with me, plus I was nice enough to bring an extra 2p, a whole half of what i’d gone over, as a penalty that I thought was adequate. The manager told me that I should look after my account better, and that £27, for going 4p over, was perfectly acceptable, and given that I didn’t have £27 that day, i’d have to come back the next day, with the charge then at £33. Why he thought i’d have £33 tomorrow, when I didn’t have £27 today, is beyond me. Greed, i’d imagine. This, was two days after Lloyds had just received a bail out from tax payers. It was a couple of months before the Government side-stepped monopoly rules, to allow Lloyds to pretty much take over half the banking sector, including HBOS which was acquired in a rush, with an expected loss of £8bn, when in fact, it was £10.8bn, which of course had massive implications for it’s workforce. Not so much for it’s rich executives. And they have the nerve to lecture me, for going 4p over drawn, despite themselves going £2.8bn overdrawn? Can I charge them for that? I don’t have the taxpayer to bail me out.

Former CEO of HBOS Andy Hornby played his part in the dodgy dealings worth a pre-tax loss of £10.8bn to HBOS in 2008. Hornby was thus forced to step down when Lloyds Group took over the toxic debts of HBOS in January 2009, but was rehired by Lloyds Group as a consultant, for £60,000 a month. Which is bad enough. Especially considering HM Treasury were forced to prop up Lloyds Group in 2009, by taking a 43% stake in the Company. I’m pretty sure I could take on a role as a banking CEO, and make such extreme loses, leading to a financial disaster, huge job losses, huge loan scale backs leading to the deaths of many businesses, and huge home repossessions, if it means I take home a lovely big bonus and a new £60,000 a month job.

Lloyds haven’t faired much better since taking over the mess left by Hornby. In December 2008, they systematically cut off funding to Interpal, one of the few remaining humanitarian charities in Gaza, dedicated to helping Orphaned children and those who cannot help themselves. Then of course, there was the news in February, from the Treasury and reported in The Guardian, that Lloyds had been disguising tax avoidance schemes as American Financial institution investments. Followed most recently, two days ago in fact, by the news that Lloyds paid back £4bn worth of preference shares to HM Treasury in order to avoid £480m of annual interest, whilst simultaneously cutting 1660 jobs across 164 Cheltenham and Gloucester branches. The UK Government propped up the failing Lloyds Group, after it took on such toxic assets, not simply so the Lloyds executives could pay Andy Hornby £60,000 a month, whilst laying off 1,660 people. Is this “trickle down economics“? The closing of 164 C&G branches, will have an adverse affect on local businesses and projects. Lloyds should be ashamed. The UK Government should be ashamed. As a Lloyds customer myself, I’m wondering what the incentive is to remain loyal to these people. It simply exists to benefit those like Hornby. To make sure those people, those rich few, remain so. Not only that, but the moment the job cuts were announced, the share price shot up. Seriously, the World has lost the plot. It woudlseem that their thinking revolves around the idea that the sooner they can get to the stage where they’re able to pay out ridiculously huge bonuses to those who do not deserve it, the better.? No, fuck right off! If I were part of the Treasury, with a 43% stake in Lloyds Group, the first thing I do when they announce they want to cut 1660 jobs, and cut 164 branches of a much loved high street bank, whilst paying consultants £60,000 a year and paying the treasure back, is to tell them to keep the £4bn, until they are able to pay it back, without such huge cutbacks. If that’s ten years down the line, so be it.

Alliance Boots, of all the people they could have chosen as their next Chief Executive, they go for a man who lost his last company, £10.8bn. A monkey would have been a more reliable option.

British “Democracy”

Democracy is an ideal. It’s never been tried in it’s purest form. America, the birthplace of modern democracy gets to exercise it’s democratic rights by choosing a President every four years, out of a pool of….. two candidates.

Over here in the UK, we have an unelected head of state, who just so happens to be the biggest benefit claimant on the planet, who we have to bow to whenever she walks past. So much for the power of Democracy.

It would seem today that our Democracy is slowly eroding. The sea of the New Labour (who I voted for in 2005) is pounding the foundations of Democracy every second of every day. It shouldn’t strike me as inconceivable though given that no one actually voted for Gordon Brown to be Prime Minister. It’s not like Labour value democracy and freedom right this minute.

Last month, the Information Tribunal decided that the record taken of Cabinet meetings running up to the decision to go to War with Iraq, should be made public. The subject of the meetings was whether the War was legal under international law.

The Tribunal said “The decision to commit the nation’s armed forces to the invasion of another country is momentous in its own right” … and they’re right. The decision to go to War is of such huge importance. Almost six years later, we should, as voters, in a ‘healthy’ democracy, be given the information that lead to so many of our men dying for such a failure of a war. We know that Blair made the decision himself, we know that he was seen as the UKs answer to a President. We know that MPs, those who represent us, the people, were just left in the dark. We know the war was illegal, so let’s cut the bullshit and release the papers. These people need to be held to account.

But no.

Today in the Commons, Jack Straw, the Justice Secretary, vetoed the decision of the Tribunal, and said that the papers would now not be released. He claims the papers would do “serious damage to the government“….. Unfortunately Mr Straw, that’s not how Democracy works. You cannot cover up that which may hurt you.

The Tories said the decision was “right” because… “the release of the minutes would make ministers more reluctant to discuss controversial subjects in future, impeding good government.”
The Tories of course have to say the decision was right. Because they know, as we all know, that they will be the next Government of the United Kingdom, and by calling for information of what is said at Cabinet meetings to be made public, they immediately give the opposition a reason to demand any little bit of Cabinet information the Tories in power might have, regarding absolutely anything. So yes, the Tories are playing politics with this.

Jack Straw told the Commons that releasing the documents would negatively affect the workings of Cabinet Government. Which, in the language of reality, means that Cabinet Government works best when it’s free to lie, cover up, and keep secret anything that they may have said and done which the public would look at with disgust. What Jack Straw essentially said was that secrecy and the ability to lie without being questioned is more important to uphold than law, justice, Democracy and accountability.

Shadow Justice Secretary, Dominic Grieve was right when he questioned today, how it make Jack Straw look in the public eye “…for someone so closely involved in the key decisions to go to war, now to be personally blocking the release of that information”. The answer to that questioning lies in the heckles from MPs in the Commons when Straw announced the veto, of “Disgraceful“. That’s how it looks.

With regard to Straw claiming to be acting in the interest of the workings of Cabinet Government (the workings of which, have been slowly eroded since Thatcher), the Liberal Democrat Spokesman David Howarth is quoted today as saying quite rightfully “This decision has more to do with preventing embarrassment than with protecting the system of government.” It is indeed, a scandal of epic proportions.

It creates an us VS them mentality. Jack Staw told the Commons that releasing the minutes was “Not in the public interest“. It sets a dangerous precedent when one man can tell an entire Nation that we as voters aren’t allowed to decide for ourselves what is and isn’t in our interest to know. And forgive me if i’m wrong, but when a person’s son or daughter or brother or sister or husband or wife is killed in a War built on secrecy and deception, it’s well within their “interest” to know why they lost someone they loved. Straw has absolutely no right to say otherwise.

For all the good Labour have done for those of us who were left behind under the previous Tory government, their legacy is one of lies, covering their own back, deception, keeping the public at arms length, terrible policies, a fallen economy and scandal. It’s a shame. And now to cover up just how damaging they have been, they ignore the entire Nation when we demand to know why our soldiers have died and are continuing to die. What if I were arrested, asked by the police for my address, and I were to say “It’s not in your interest to know my address, it would damage the working of my family and how they view me as a person“. I’d be laughed at. Jack Straw lied. He now looks as if he’s covering something up. Like a day time chat show guest who refuses to take a lie detector test because he has “no reason to“, we know he’s lying. And this is deeply embarrassing for the Government.

Tony Wright, Chairman of the Public Administration Select Committee rightly asked in the Commons “Won’t this confirm people’s beliefs… there is something in the minutes which needs to be hidden?” It sure as hell confirms that I, along with millions of us who have supported the Labour Party in the past, will stay well away from voting for them at the next election. Every week, there exists another reason to despise these people ruling over us.

As we speak, we in the UK appear to be Nationalising banks whilst we Privatise the Post Office, even though Labour in their manifesto pledged to keep the Post Office in public hands. It’s like Labour are playing Democracy in reverse, the last past the post wins system. They appear to want to see how few votes a once strong Party can now suck in.

I support Democracy. It’s just a shame it’s never been tried.

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.