Whilst reading an article on New Labours plan for broadband over on the British Politics blog I was taken by acomment included in the post, not directly related to the subject, but it struck a chord with me. British Politics described New labour as the “say something, do nothing” party. At a time when Gordon Brown likes to continually accuse the conservative party of being the “do nothing party”, it crossed my mind about people in glass houses etc.

Now I don’t deny, as was stated by British Politics, that when it comes to spending our money, attacking our civil liberties or hiding their expenses from prying eyes, the Labour party is active, perhaps even enthusiastic. But, what about all of the other promises and commitments they have made over the years? This “say something, do nothing” party has, over the last 11 long years, consistently made promises and failed to deliver. They have enjoyed the publicity of one ‘policy initiative’ afetr the other, but conveniently forgotten to do anything many of them, or conveniently buried them when they couldn’t make it work.

New Labour ministers are for ever opening their mouths, before they have engaged their brains. The broadband promise is yet another example where Gordon Brown is trying to spin the subject matter for positive headlines, yet, all he has in the content of an interim report, there is little or no substance to it and no real financial figures. In fact, it is a perfect example of “say something, do nothing“.

After all, how can the government promise something that the commercial sector must deliver, how can the government determine a timescale with no commercial agreements, in fact, just what will the government be doing to deliver on this commitment, they won’t legislate for it? Well the the answer is simple…nothing. In other words, they are the ’say something, do nothing’ party.

This got me thinking, perhaps Gordon Brown should try a dose of his own medicine, after all, he started this whole thing didn’t he? I wonder how many other examples we could put together where Gordon Brown, Tony Blair or New Labour have said something and done nothing. One that immediately springs to mind, is the promise of a further 200,000 affordable homes by 2016. At this time, there are virtually no homes being built, much less, affordable homes.

But again, Gordon Brown basked in the glory of his own spin, promised 200,000 houses, even though his party were making a promise that only the private sector could deliver on. Remember, he did not promise social housing, just affordable housing. A perfect example of ’say something, do nothing’. I am certain that if we put our collective minds together, we could list dozens of other examples, please feel free! Perhaps we should also consider adding another tag to New Labour posts, ’say something do nothing’, it might even encourage David Cameron and the Conservatives to start highlighting just how many broken promises there have been under this government? Please feel free to post your responses below.

Though I am no expert on the stock market crash of 1929 or the Great Depression that followed, what a pity that senior bankers and politicians did not study this subject and learn some of the lessons. There are so many parallels that it is uncanny and implies that people who should know better never learn their lessons.

In the run up to the Great Depression, ordinary people were allowed to purchase shares, whereas in the past it had been an exclusive club. In doing so, they increased demand and share prices started their relentless rise. This started to encourage more and more people to buy shares and, you’ve guessed it, the prices started to rise even further. The inexorable rise in share prices encouraged people to start to borrow in order that they could take advantage of the wealth creation that the stock market appeared to provide. The vast majority of these ordinary people had absolutely no idea how the stock market worked, it just looked like a one way bet. Brokers extended credit to share purchasers, in what became know as ‘margins’ whereby the purchaser could buy for example, $60,000 worth of shares, with just $6,000 of cash, the rest was borrowed.

The people of America felt rich, lifestyles improved after the austerity of the first world war and few people raised any doubts, those that did, such as President Hoover, tended to keep it to themselves, rather than be see as the Cassandra. Millions of people were encouraged to invest in the new gold rush that was the New York Stock Exchange, with little or no knowledge of the risks and inevitably with a ringing in their ears that you have to be ‘in it, to win it’. Banks and brokers stoked the money fever by extending loans secured on the shares. Inevitably the bubble burst, some were smart enough or lucky enough to get out before the crash, but they were few and far between. The vast majority of people lost all of their savings. There followed
the Great Depression, which lead to mass unemployment and affected virtually every corner of the world and it lasted 10 years. Some would argue that it also encouraged fascism and communism, if true, then it could well have been a precursor to the second world war.

If we exchange shares for houses, the parallels are uncanny. Many people have jumped on the housing bandwagon for fear of being left behind and a concern that if they were not a property owner, then they were nothing. In fact, there is some irony with that last statement because, as we all know, if you went to a bank and were a home owner, even if you owed £300k on your house, you were more likely to be able to secure another loan, than if you had no such liabilities because you rented. Somehow, owning a home had become the primary goal of a good proportion of the people of this country, actively encouraged by the banks. Loan to Value (LTV) ratios increased from around 75% to, in some cases, 125%. This implied that the banks felt that their investment was safe, because house prices would continue to rise, which meant that in a relatively short period of time, their risk would be covered by the rise in house prices.

If the banks felt that way, why would the buyers not? The ratios were also increased, allowing people to buy a house with multiples or 5 or 6 times their earnings, where previously this had typically been 2.5 times joint, or 3 times a single income. If that were not enough, many of the banks introduced ‘buy to let’ schemes, which allowed people with little or no money to build up a property portfolio in no time and of course, lead to an even greater demand for properties, leading to a further increase in house prices. So, everyone was making money, homeowners, the banks, mortgage companies, estate agents and of course, your friend and mine Gordon Brown, in the form of the Treasury.

After the 1929 stock market crash, Hoover introduced the Securities & Exchange commision to regulate US markets, this had the desired affect. However, over the past 20 years or so, the rules and regulations have been relaxed, seen as no longer necessary and much of what we witness in the United States today can be attributed to the easing of those regulations. Similarly, the much vaunted deregulation of the City was also a pre-cursor to the problems we all face today. Light regulation and a hand-off approach by government and the regulators has allowed the banks to enter very high risk transactions which many people struggle to understand. Yet, in doing so, they have clearly bet everything on it, presumably because they also though they couldn’t lose. Now, clearly all of us must take personal responsibility for our respective levels of borrowings, but easy money is difficult to refuse especially when it is being rammed down your throat on a daily basis, in the newspapers, on TV, in the shops and via direct mail campaigns.

However, when people hold senior positions, in banks, commerce and government, we could all be forgiven for believing that they are well read, experienced, shrewd and knowledgeable. In fact, we tend to take it for granted, how else would they have secured senior positions with such huge responsibilities? As chancellor, Gordon Brown in particular and the Labour government in general have let us down, their collective naivety lulled us all into a sense of false security, with Gordon Brown using the oft repeated mantra that his government policies would lead to an end of “Tory boom and bust”.

We can be forgiven for believing that a man in such a position would be best placed to know whether that was true or not, but instead, we have all come to realise, that politicians do not earn their position because of their knowledge, but instead, where they sit in the party. In other words, they learn on the job. Imagine placing a 10 year old in charge of a London bus if you will! Similarly, bankers have created new financial products, which are so complicated, that few, if any, could actually understand the risks associated with bundling mortgage securities. At best their actions could be described as reckless, but a far better description maybe of a desperate gambler playing for high stakes.

The regulators appear to have either been overwhelmed at the scale of these new securities or, more likely, unable to understand the complexities. As a consequence, those that were entrusted with our financial security, government ministers, regulators and banks, have seriously let the people of this country down, as well as shareholders, many of whom are you and I with pension funds invested in the stock market.

What is particularly galling is the fact that no-one wants to accept responsibility. On top of that, the same people that got us into this mess are, for the most part, still in the same positions. Asking us to believe that they have all the answers. Even though, had they studied their subject matter better and read up on the stock market crash of 1929 and the Great depression, many of the problems we are facing today could have been anticipated and perhaps even avoided. Governments around the world want us to believe that their solutions will work, but how do they really know, what confidence can we have in their solutions? They are spending £trillions on propping up banks, business and economies, but all of this money is borrowed, have they learnt nothing?

The rest of us are having to tighten our belts, but our governments are spending our money in what appears to be a last throw of the dice. They are all frightened of another depression, aren’t we all, but sometimes it is necessary for a period of reflection, instead, governments around the world appear to be thrashing around, panicking in a last throw of the dice. We all find ourselves asking where will it all end, not when?

We must all learn lessons from this. But one fundamental lesson is that no member of parliament should be allowed to take up a position unless they have prior experience. For example, no current cabinet minister has ever run their own business, so what do they know of the problems being faced by business people? When was the last time that an experienced person was placed in charge of the second largest employer in the world, the National Health Service? Take a look at Miliband, he is wet behind the ears, lacks depth and credibility, he may be ’smooth’ but he does not look like someone that is well read. In fact, he even managed to offend the Indian government on his last visit, are these the sort of people we want to be representing us on the world stage? What of Jacqui Smith, she finds it difficult to string a sentence together has allowed the police and other agencies to trample all over our civil liberties and lacks any obvious gravitas? Little wonder that we are in a mess.

In my view, government ministers and bankers must be called to account because they have demonstrated what appears to be a reckless disregard for the interests, respectively of the people of this country and the interests of their shareholders.

It is a time for change and this must include a look at how or on what basis members of parliament are given key cabinet posts. In no other business or industry I know of do people with little or no experience get elevated to such senior positions based on nothing other than a handshake. Never again should the people of this country be lead by donkeys. We will come out the other side, most likely in spite of this government intervention rather than because of them, but when we do, the people’s voice must be heard. We must demand change.

During yesterday’s press conference to announce the latest banking bailout you demonstrated your true colours. When asked by a reporter if you were offering the banks a “blank cheque”, you turned on him saying that he needs to be careful about what he was accusing you of. I don’t know about the reporter, but I felt your response was menacing, bordering on threatening. Just who the hell do you think you are? Whilst you may surround yourself with yes men and women, the public of this country have to rely on reporters and the odd MP to ask searching questions.

The bottom line is you have offered a blank cheque. Please feel free to threaten me, because I will not be intimidated with your schoolyard bully antics, which can serve only to demonstrate that you are a weak or a vain man. Lets look at the accusation that you are issuing a blank cheque. You have refused to put a number on the cost of the banking insurance scheme, which implies that you don’t know the cost. This smacks of a blank cheque, furthermore, if you are not even prepared to put an upper limit on the exposure, this is another clear indication that you are providing the banks with a blank cheque. So blank cheque it is, if it look like a dog, barks like a dog etc, etc…

The truth is, when the original banking bailout was conceived, insufficient thought was given to it, instead a huge amount of taxpayers money was thrown at the problem and it has had little or no affect. Banks are not lending to each other and the high street banks have not significantly increased their lending to consumers or businesses. All the £37bn has achieved is, that it has allowed ailing banks to shore up their balance sheets. In other words, it was a complete and utter failure. In addition, the advisers that your government appointed, clearly failed to identify the extent of the questionable or ‘toxic’ debt within the banks that you invested our money in. That is hardly the sign of a competent government or leader.

What I find most galling is your abject failure to admit any responsibility for something that happened on your watch, principally as Chancellor and subsequently as Prime Minister. What you need Mr Brown, is more people around you that tell you how it is, not people that continually blow hot air up your backside. If you surround yourself by people that keep telling you, at least to your face, that you are brilliant, then there is an inherent risk that you start to believe them. Well let me put you straight Mr Brown. In my view, you were the most inept Chancellor in history, you knew that the entire economy was being driven by cheap and plentiful credit, in part because of historically low interest rates and more specifically because of the boom in house prices, allowing people to release and spend their equity. Some would call it fools gold. But, the bottom line is, many, many warnings were being given by economists and the like that the bubble would burst. You ignored them and we are now paying the price.

Granted Mr Brown, the housing crisis started in the United States, but as you well know, if we ourselves had not had an unsustainable housing boom, we would not have been so badly affected as we were. Remember, you were the one that promised and end to ‘boom and bust’, how hollow those words are now. Remember also, that you have claimed all of the credit for the so called boom years, but did you put anything aside for a rainy day, no you did not. Instead, you went on a massive spending and borrowing spree. For example, in spite of the fact that you increased employers and employees national insurance contributions by 1%, ostensibly to allow further investment into the national health service, you then used PFI to finance the building of hospitals, regardless of cost to the taxpayer. For example, to build a new hospital would normally cost around £60m, using PFI, the cost over 30 years in £300m. Little wonder that PFI contracts were traded on the open market with £millions being made on each trade.

Each time I hear you say that you are acting in the best interests of the public it makes me cringe. In my view, if you were as honest and sincere as you would have us believe, you would step aside and let this country decide who they want to lead us out of this enormous mess. You have made massive mistakes and ignored many warning signs, instead of taking appropriate, if unpopular decisions at a time that they would have made a difference, you ignored them in favour of the Labour Party’s populist approach. Don’t you dare try and tell us you didn’t see the warning signs, it was your bloody job, some of the people of this country placed a great deal of trust in you and you let us all down. You may be angry with the banks for embarrassing you, but trust me Mr Brown, we are very, very angry with you.

The last banking bailout may have prevented the banks from collapsing, but, for all intents and purposes, it failed on every other measure. Moreover, the recent report that your advisers failed to identify a potential £2,5bn write-off of a debt until recently is shameful. This should have been evident before you spent our money investing in a bank that is expected to report losses of up to £28bn. What happened to due diligence and warranties? Your current plans appear piecemeal and with respect Mr Brown, the whole thing smacks of a desperate man placing the last of his money on a horse in the vain hope that he can win big. Shit or bust as my father used to say! But, of course, it is not your money, it is ours and most of us, thank god, are not high stakes gamblers. If you cannot tell us how much it is going to cost, how can you claim that your response is measured? If the previous bailout failed, how can you convince us that this one will not follow suit?

The fact is Mr Brown, you lack credibility, if you fail to achieve your objectives, you simply move the goal posts, when asked a difficult but relevant question, you bluster, ignore them, or once again, refer to what the Conservatives have done in the past, ignoring the fact that we have heard it all before and they haven’t been in power for 12 years! Your party is a spent force and if I may be so bold Mr Brown, I was perhaps one of the few people that never believed you had the ability or nous to be a good chancellor, oh how I wish I had been wrong.

Your reputation for prudence Mr Brown is in tatters, your credibility as a prime minister has been in question almost from the outset and your ability to lead us out of this mess is simply too far fetched to imagine. So please do the decent thing and step aside. Let the people of this country decide who is best to lead us out of this financial mess. We deserve no less!

Gordon Brown has taken a great liking to decribing the Conservative party as the “do nothing party” and he may well have a point, because until recently, they (the Conservatives) have preferred to paint an austerity picture rather than coming up with something tangible or credible. But what of the Labour government? Rather than doing ’something’, their motto could be described as ‘do anything’, so long as they appear to be doing something.

As part of the government banking bailout in October last year, the taxpayer ended up with 58% of the Royal Bank of Scotland. However, whether this was a bailout, rescue or a necessary evil, the fact remains that the government, through its advisors, were obliged to act diligently and with care. Particularly given it is our money, not theirs. But did they?

There are reports that Gordon Brown is furious that Treasury officials have only just discovered that ABN Amro, the Dutch bank taken over by the Royal Bank of Scotland in 2006, will write-off a £2.5bn loan to LyondellBassell which is reported to be teetering on the brink of bankcuptcy with £18bn of debts. Given the government was taking a controlling interest in RBS, it was right and would have been expected that whatever the circumstances, there would have been a process of ‘due diligence’ to ensure that there were no surprises in store. Furthermore, the taxpayer would have been right to have expected the government and or their advisors to have secured warranties against any undisclosed liabilities that the bank had. Was this done, if not, why not? Anywhere else this would be standard practice.

If these reports prove to be accurate, then at best, this government has demonstrated that they acted in haste and at worst, that they have been negligent resulting in a further cost to the taxpayer of £2.5bn. Furthermore, it could be argued, that if they missed a debt of this magnitude, how many other, ’smaller’ questionable debts have been missed? In my view, this government has already demonstrated a flair for acting recklessly with taxpayers money and a culture of blaming someone or something else. However, from my perspective, there can be no excuse, when spending so much of the British taxpayers money, for not acting responsibly and demonstrating best practice whatever the circumstances. The bottom line is, had this transaction been competed properly there should be no surprises unless there was a failure to disclose and if the latter was the case, then the government should be able to claim against warranties.

This banking bailout involved huge sums of money and the public is entitled to know that the government, ministers, civil servants and advisors all acted appropriately and with due care. There needs to be an independent public enquiry into what measures the government employed to protect the public purse when this government pledged taypayers money to the banks. This should be wide-ranging and at the very least, include details on what level of due diligence was employed, whether warranties were sought and received and what other commercial conditions were placed on the banks. Given, unlike many other countries, this government did not need the approval of parliament to invest these vast sums, evidence must be provided that the taxpayers interests were protected at all times. If it should subsequently be proven that individual government ministers, civil servants or advisors have acted negligently, then they must be prosecuted.

Gordon Brown likes to say that this governments’ intervention is measured and appropriate. To me it looks as if this government has little or no idea of what it is doing, opting to do anything, rather than something. More akin to a gambler having his last throw of the dice, rather than a government in control or one which knows where we are going. I literally shudder when I consider the damage that has been done to the British economy by this excuse for a government and it juts gets worst, when reports of undiscovered liabilities, on a majority owned state asset are discovered 3 months after the deal has been concluded.

A rhetorical question I know, but any enlightened citizen of the United Kingdom must have found themselves asking this question in the past few months. Whilst I accept that this could have been in relation to the economy, terrorism, the economy or civil liberties, I want to refer to the latter only in this post.

Liberty, the group tasked with fighting for our civil liberties and promoting human rights, recently conducted a ComRes poll in relation to this very issue and as a consequence of changes or proposed changes to the Human Rights Act. The results are not surprising, but perhaps the percentages are.

For example, 95% of those polled said that they believed respect for privacy, family life and the home and the right to a fair trial was either vital or important. Are there any member of parliament reading this poll, because I can see very few actually seeking to protect these areas that have been consistently attacked and eroded by this government? All the Conservative party does is attack Labour policies. However, they have yet to put on record that they would, if successful at the next election, repeal any legislation introduced by the current government that attacks the civil liberties and rights of the ordinary man and woman in the street. This failure to say anything implies that whilst they are now willing to attack the Labour party on every front, they are secretly in support of new, draconian legislation, designed to control the people of this country.

Elsewhere in the poll, 90% of those asked, responded that they believed freedom of speech, protest and association was either vital or important. Once again, this government has introduced legislation or proposals aimed at curtailing this right, or freedom, depending on your perspective. Perhaps the most frightening statistic, is that only 13% of those polled ever remember seeing or reading information from the government about this legislation. We could debate for months to come over whether this is the responsibility of a government intent on hiding draconian legislation within the small print of obscure or ill-described Acts of Parliament, or a failure of the media to highlight these issues. Either way, what is clear, is that that vast majority of the people of this country are not aware of major changes to our civil liberties and human rights on an almost daily basis. What is self-evident however, is that few will be aware until such time as they fall foul with the law.

This poll suggests that the people of this country do not want to see our rights and liberties eroded through draconian legislation. It makes clear that the primary reason there has been no public backlash is the fact that 87% of the population are not even aware of this government’s attack on everything we have held dear for hundreds of years. Legislation that was introduced with the sole aim of protecting us from repressive governments. It also suggests that members of parliament from all sides are either out of touch with the opinions of their constituents or they couldn’t care less, so long as John Lewis is open.

Furthermore, it implies that the opposition parties are either complicit or supportive of new legislation, given for the most part, they are only willing to criticise, rather than make clear statements that they would repeal the acts if they came to power. By contrast, take David Cameron’s statement on Heathrow, he has said if the Conservatives get into government, they will scrap plans for a third runway. Has anyone heard him say anything quite so direct when it comes to our liberty of freedom?

There are Groups and individuals in this country that are attempting to highlight this attack on our freedom, civil liberties and human rights, but it is an uphill struggle. There needs to be more column inches devoted to this topic, more bloggers need to get on board, journalists, with the notable exception of those fromThe Guardian ,need to educate the public about the affeacts of the new legislation and proospective MP’s should consider standing on a civil liberties platform, rather than anti-sleaze. I would also like to see, at the next general election, an influx of Libertarians vying for office, because if nothing else, they would ensure that this topic would be debated in public, at a time when the lectorate is actually listening.

Is it just me or are we are all becoming a little blasé about money, or to be more accurate, the number of noughts that follow the £ sign? Let me explain. Ever since Gordon Brown announced a massive £500bn plus bailout of the banking sector, commentators and politicians have been talking about £billions in the same way as they used to talk about £millions. In other words, everyone seems a little punch drunk. In the sales arena, the constant mentioning of large amounts of money was known as conditioning, if you keep talking about £65k BMW’s, then when the salesman mentions ‘just’ £15k for a new Vauxhall, it sounds like a bargain. However, in my little world, a £million is still a lot of money, especially when you consider how long it takes us to hand that amount of money to successive governments.

At a time when everyone is having to tighten their belt, this government has announced that they will increase spending from £620bn to £650bn, the conservatives tell us that they will “only” increase it by £25bn. Forgive me, but this sounds like an awful lot of money! In my personal life and indeed my business life, I have always understood and accepted that there are excesses, in other words, there have always been things that I want, rather than need. Therefore, when times are hard, I am obliged to deal with my excesses, to reduce my outgoings and I suspect, that this will be going on in the majority of homes and business up and down the land. This is a painful but necessary evil when times are hard. Not so for the government. No, instead, they tell us how they are going to spend more money, not how they are going to provide better value. The conservative are no better, because they say that they will just spend less (£5bn), but their proposals still amounts to an increase of £25bn!

By spending our money more wisely, buying what we need, rather than what we would like and curbing our wasteful habits, I suspect that most of us could, conservatively, reduce our outgoings by around 10%, possible considerably more. I didn’t say it would be easy, nor did I say all of us, so please accept that I am referring to most, not all of us. If this is a reasoned argument, why is it that the government cannot reduce their own waste, surely they are not going to argue that they are lean and mean or that all of our money is spent both wisely and without excess? Not a cat in hells chance. Surely, it would be better to reduce government waste and excess to channel the savings into more relevant or deserving causes, rather than just borrowing more money. The government is effectively condoning living on the never, never. Failing to practice what they preach. What angers me most, is that the conservative party, petrified of being accused of being the party of cuts, has failed to talk convincingly about value for money, getting the most of each taxpayer pound collected or borrowed.

With an election likely to be just around the corner, now is the time for the other parties to get tough. I am not talking about an austerity speech, nor a doom and gloom scenario, as has become the conservative party mantle. No, I am referring to a party, any party, that offers realistic hope, leadership and direction. One that refers to government money as taxpayers money, borrowings as future liabilities and above all, the use of taxpayers money in terms of value, not numbers to be bandied about. The people of this country do not need to see doom and gloom whenever they turn on the TV or read a newspaper, the majority of us know that times are tough and that they will be for the foreseeable future. What we need to witness, are politicians that appear to know what they are talking about (a very rare bread) and political parties that truly demonstrate that they know how to run a country and a good start would be how to spend taxpayers money wisely in order that we, the taxpayers, receive maximum bang for our buck.

Politicians and government must stop ‘conditioning’ the British people by constantly bombarding us with numbers most of us simply can’t envisage or picture. Instead, they must do what most normal people managing household budgets do when times get tough. Ensure that we are getting value for money. It is, after all, possible to spend more money on a holiday if someone gives up smoking, or to buy a better car if we shop at Aldi’s instead of Sainsbury’s, buy tea instead of coffee, drink tap water instead of bottled or even to survive the recession if we cut our cloth to suit our circumstances. It is a question of priorities. Government, whoever they are, have a responsibility, in fact a duty, to ensure that they spend or invest taxpayers money wisely. They must not be allowed to pour more money into a bucket which is already leaking taxpayers money.