Tag Archive | "Bank of England"

Gordon Brown, the G20 is over, time to go

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Gordon Brown, the G20 is over, time to go


Gordon Brown has received a great deal of praise from world leaders at the G20, one assumes, because he managed to get so many leaders together in one place to discuss the global economy. But talks of a breakthrough or global deal are a bit strong, lets face it, all we have been given is a set of guiding principles. Nothing is binding and, as we all know, when the dust settles, things are rarely as they at first appeared. For example, tax havens will be named and shamed, but that won’t stop them doing what they have been doing for years, threatened sanctions are unlikely to have any real impact, even if they are implemented, which is a very big IF!

Everyone has agreed that banking and financial market regulation has to be tightened, but this is meaningless, because no-one will agree that there can, or should be a world regulator. Therefore, all we will see is each country implementing their own regulation, presumably based on the guiding principles agreed by the leaders. But rest assured, someone will be a little more flexible, so that they can attract the ‘banking and financial services business’ to their shores, stealing it away from London. The primary reason that London was the banking and financial services centre of the world, was Gordon Brown’s own “light touch regulation“, now it is likely that we will toughen regulation so much, that we will lose most of this trade. Some will argue that this is okay given the circumstances, but, truth be told, banking will continue, just somewhere else and we will have to find something to take the place of the 20% of GDP that we will lose if London is no longer the banking and financial services centre of the world. Has anyone any idea what we have in our armoury to deal with this massive reduction in trade, tax receipts and jobs? Thought not? Talk about throwing the baby out with the bath water.

Sarkozy may be a little petulant, but he is not stupid, he wants more regulation, because he seeks a level playing field so that Paris can take over where London left off. Gordon Brown’s light touch regulation was a failed policy and we shall all pay the price, however, if we now over-regulate for political expediency, we shall lose future, better regulated business to other countries such as France and Germany. Surely it is possible to regulate without killing off this significant contributor to our massive balance of trade deficit? A failure to get the balance right will cost us all and that is another good reason why Gordon Brown has to go and go now.

It was Gordon Brown that coined the phrase light touch regulation and he even had the temerity to lecture other European leaders on the same subject. Now, this same man is telling everyone that there must be much tighter regulation of the banks and financial markets. Talk about turning on a sixpence! Under Gordon Brown’s light touch regulation, it was possible for the financial markets to introduce new financial products with such complexity, that few people understood them, or the associated risks. Everyone knew of these instruments, but no-one, not even the regulator, asked any (or enough) questions. This, together with an overheating housing market and increased personal indebtedness is what caused the crisis. Our ability to manage this crisis in the UK has been exacerbated by the fact that UK Plc is massively in debt, not necessarily based on the Government figures, but when taking account of all the off-balance sheet debts that ought to have been included such as PFI, pension liabilities etc

Of course, Gordon Brown cannot be held responsible for the world economic problems, but he can and must be held culpable for the problems that have become evident here in the UK on his watch. It was ultimately his job as Chancellor to ensure that the financial markets were kept in check, Government borrowing was accurately reported and kept under control and that the availability of credit be actively managed, both secured and unsecured. The fact that our economy and housing market was overheating was known to Brown, he received plenty of warnings, he chose to do nothing. He was in denial, but he could no longer pretend everything was okay when the world banking crisis forced government intervention here in the UK. Let’s not kid ourselves, whether or not the world banking crisis happened, this country would have gone into recession. It was Gordon Brown’s job as Chancellor to ensure that boom and bust was at an end, he failed and in a spectacular way.

History will prove that Gordon Brown was a poor Chancellor and that he missed or chose to ignore every sign that our economy was running into trouble. It is only the world crisis that has diverted attention from his full culpability. What we must not do however, is allow this inept former Chancellor to continue making financial decisions that will affect each and everyone of us. His past judgements have been seriously and catastrophically flawed and by his own admission, we are now in “uncharted territory“, therefore how can any of us have any confidence in this man? Gordon Brown has been universally praised for his decision to make the Bank of England independent. However, the tripartite system that was introduced as a direct consequence was not clearly thought out given it has spectacularly failed, with The Treasury, Bank of England and the FSA blaming each other for the mess we are in. Therefore, I would argue that the jury is still out on whether or not Gordon Brown’s stated objectives were achieved when he gave the Bank of England independence, whilst stripping them of other fundamental responsibilities. Take this ‘achievement’ away and what other positive legacies has Gordon Brown given us…none that I can see? But there are literally hundreds of failures, I won’t name them all because it would take too long, but a short list would include a decimation of the private sector pension schemes through the removal of tax breaks, whilst allowing public sector pensions to get out of control with an unfunded liability of around £900bn; The introduction of a overly complicated ‘Tax Credit’ scheme which still ‘loses’ £2bn every year through errors and fraud; A massive public sector debt, much of which has been hidden from sight through fancy footwork and an insistence that certain debts remain off-balance sheet; a huge increase in environmental and other stealth taxes which are then funneled into non-related pet projects rather than being used for the purpose stated at the outset; and, a massive increase in direct and indirect taxation.

The mainstream press are going on about an expected “bounce” in the popularity of Gordon Brown. That may be true, but then we deserve what we get, because this is a man who is primarily responsible for getting us into the mess we are in. No world leader, naive enough to praise Gordon Brown, should be permitted to sway public opinion from the harsh reality of Brown’s policy failures, rank incompetence and inability to heed warnings. Time to go Gordon Brown, maybe the public will then look upon your efforts at the G20 as an act of contrition and be more forgiving when we look at your legacy.

Posted in General, Labour, World | Comments (3)

Asset Protection Scheme IS a Blank Cheque

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Asset Protection Scheme IS a Blank Cheque


Whatever Gordon Brown may have said about the Asset Protection Scheme not being a blank cheque, he is either misguided or failing to be honest with the electorate, you decide. Whilst I was aware that  a proportion of the £325bn (RBS) of “toxic assets” insured by the UK taxpayer would be outside the UK, I had NOT expected it to be the “majority”. Furthermore, I had not considered the fact that we, the UK taxpayers, would also be liable for exchange rate risks.

Gordon Brown claimed that the banking bailout was not a “blank cheque”, that is utter rubbish, in my view the definition of a blank cheque is one where you don’t know what the final cost will be and there is no cap on your exposure. Could anyone disagree with that analogy? Yet here we are, insuring toxic assets, where our exposure is unknown, the vast majority of the “assets” are overseas and we must accept 90% of any losses as well as covering exchange rate issues at a time when Sterling is dropping like a stone against ALL major currencies.

Granted, when or if we have to stump up cash to cover these losses, no-one can accurately predict the exchange rates, but it would be a very brave man, with the state of our economy, that would envisage that Sterling will be stronger than it is now. Lets face it, this country has massive borrowings, lower tax income and it is expected to be the last of the G7 to come out of recession. That is hardly going to provide any confidence in Sterling, add to that, the fact that we are also printing money and the writing is on the wall for a weak Pound for some time to come.

Unlike the United States where the banking bailout had to be passed through both Houses of US Congress, in this country, Gordon Brown was able to commit money without such scrutiny. That is an incredible amount of power and it ought to have been used with care, but in my opinion, our Government has been reckless. Not only have they failed to complete a proper due diligence before investing our money into the banks, but they have now negotiated an appalling deal to insure toxic assets, much of which are overseas, at a rate of 90% of the loss plus cover for the exchange rate fluctuations. If this is the best our Government could do, then it is a very sad day for politics in general and this Government in particular. The opposition parties are not much better, because they have, through their relative silence, been complicit in the whole thing.

Fair enough, there must be no reward for failure, but conversely there must also be a price to pay for recklessness, a failure of duty and incompetence. We need to start with the bankers and then deal with the politicians, ministers and regulators that have failed in their duty to the public. We can regulate as much as we want, but unless those responsible are brought to book, lessons will not have been learnt and a clear message will go out that the only ‘price‘ that has to be paid is public humiliation. Tell that to our kids and their children who will have to pay the price for this wholesale failure.

Posted in Conservatives, General, Labour, Lib Dems | Comments (4)

Gordon Brown continues to fail the British people

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Gordon Brown continues to fail the British people


How on earth do we stop this mad man that is Gordon Brown. Not only was he the architect of the financial system and regulation that lead us into this disastrous mess, but he is also the man that believes, he is more qualified than anyone else, to get us out of it. This deluded man is convinced that he bears no responsibility for what happened, even though everyone else knows differently. This vain man even seeks to lecture the leaders of other countries on what they must do to overcome the economic meltdown that is happening around our ears. This inept little man constantly tells the people of this country that the problems that have beset the United Kingdom are a direct result of economic and commercial mis-management in other countries, such as the United States. This incompetent man has the temerity to inform us that we are best placed to “weather the financial storm“. Yet he knows that this is not true and, that notwithstanding, no other economic expert agrees with his assessment. No doubt this could explain why it is that Gordon Brown has never told us why we are in a better position.

Gordon Brown, the unelected the prime minister of this country is a fool. He was a very poor Chancellor, arguably one of worst in our history. He has built on that well earned description by becoming one of the poorest, most incompetent prime ministers in recent times and there are plenty of former PM’s that could have been considered for that award. Any good leader would not assume that only he has all the answers and yet, Mr Brown constantly spouts on about the fact that he has the solutions and is best qualified to lead us out of this deep recession. A good leader would surround himself with knowledgeable people, not loyal soldiers, yes men and women, or business people seeking a knighthood or peerage for their ‘services’. Any good leader would know that a top team would always challenge the status quo, keep them on their toes, ensure that they don’t start to believe their own publicity, question, cajole and nudge. Any good leader would not be cowed by strong people around them, but instead, seek their counsel, listen, question and heed. But, Gordon Brown has clearly demonstrated that he is NOT a good leader.

Let’s consider a few other things;

Gordon Brown, as Chancellor, was the architect of the tripartite arrangement formed between the Treasury, the FSA and the Bank of England. Yet it was the failure and inadequacies of this system which allowed interest rates to be reduced so low that a housing boom was inevitable. Each party failed to respond to the experts that had argued the housing bubble was unsustainable and there was likely to be a crash. It was the failure of this system that allowed banks to grow at a rapid rate utilising funds raised on the money markets rather than the more traditional route of saver deposits. It was the failure of this system that allowed banks to package new mortgage backed securities that were then traded, but so complicated; few people understood them or the associated risks. It was the failure of this system that permitted banks to create a culture driven by greed, short-term profits and rewarded with massive bonuses. It was this system, which was set up to control, regulate and manage the City and the economy that ultimately failed on all fronts. The architect of this tripartite arrangement was Gordon Brown and he is ultimately responsible, instead, each party points the finger at another in the triangle. Not one party has had the humility or honesty to admit any form of responsibility.

Yet Gordon Brown’s incompetence is every where, for example; In spite of experts advising him of the risks, it was Gordon Brown that raided private sector pension funds. Perhaps in the belief that private sector pensions were the preserve of the rich, rather than millions of ordinary hard-working people. In doing so, he has raised around £175bn in tax revenues. But, at what cost? Roughly two thirds of (private sector) final salary pension schemes have been closed to new members, large company pension schemes have ended up with massive deficits. Pension schemes have collapsed and, of course, those within the private sector that have not been protected by employers pumping more money in will receive much smaller pensions. Meanwhile, Gordon Brown has done nothing about the public sector final salary pension schemes, the majority of which are not funded through an annuity, but out of future tax revenues. The latest estimates put the public sector pension liabilities at a staggering £1,071bn, that is correct, BILLION. As a consequence on the government’s inaction, the ‘average’ pension enjoyed by someone in the public sector is nearly 15 times higher than that of the private sector. Another blinder from the iron chancellor that was supposed to be Gordon Brown.

Here are a few other things that Gordon Brown either presided over, or influenced as part of the government machine;

  1. Introduced more stealth taxes than any other chancellor in history, equivalent to an extra 10p in the Pound on the basic rate of tax (source: Grant Thornton).
  2. Solld the UK’s gold reserves at the bottom of the market ignoring expert advice not to.
  3. Introduced ‘green taxes’ in the full and certain knowledge that any revenues gained were not destined to be invested in green initiatives. Yet another successful stealth tax to add to the collection. If you are starting to feel a little duped, then read on, I haven’t finished with Mr Brown yet!
  4. Successfully achieved the goal of becoming prime minister without going through the inconvenience of being elected by the people. This in spite of the fact that New Labour gained their substantial commons majority with 57% of the voters supporting another party. So much for the benefits of our First Past The Post electoral system.
  5. Was party to the sell out of the UK’s sovereignty to an unaccountable foreign ‘parliament’, in spite of a manifesto promise to allow the public to decide through a referendum.
  6. Destroyed the union and in the process, ensured that his countrymen received more money per head than those in England and Wales.
  7. Missed virtually every financial growth target announced in each successive budget without so much as a murmur from the press.
  8. Successfully managed to dupe the press into believing that he was an iron chancellor driven by prudence, when in fact he was a spendthrift.
  9. As the architect and driver of the revised PFI initiative originally proposed by the conservatives, saddled the country with a bill of £170bn which must be paid by 2032. Without having to include the figure as part of the public sector balance sheet.
  10. Managed to keep the £780bn public pensions deficit off the books, even though this is equivalent to over £30,000 per household and must be paid out of future tax receipts. Estimates of this deficit have now been increased to over £1trillion.
  11. Managed, without any consideration of the irony, to lecture people on their level of borrowings, whilst building up nearly £500bn of debt on the governments own ‘credit card’. If other recent liabilities are taken into account, this figure would rise substantially over £1trillion.
  12. Introduced and supported a complicated tax credit programme that has managed to lose £2bn every year through fraud and errors.
  13. Left the taxpayer saddled with £1.7bn of Metronet’s debt having been the person that pushed through the Private Public Partnership initiative for the London Underground.
  14. Managed to convince the public that local authorities were responsible for the doubling of council tax. Meanwhile he was actually placing responsibility for all additional services firmly with the local councils.
  15. Managed a real blinder, by camouflaging the inflation rate by changing the measurement from RPI to CPI.
  16. Underwritten £17bn of debt for Network Rail, without having to include it on the public balance sheet.
  17. Survived the embarrassment of claiming in March 2006 that 31,000 government employees had been trimmed off the payroll, whilst the Office for National Statistics claimed one month later, that the headcount had actually increased by 62,000 a difference of 93,000!
  18. Managed to introduce such a complex set of rules and regulations, designed to extract maximum tax take that the annual Finance Act (summary of tax changes in the budget) has increased from 300 pages or so in the 1980’s to over 10,000.
  19. At a time when businesses are struggling and people are having to tighten their belts, presided over a government that boasts some 78 acres of empty space in office buildings and grace and favour homes.
  20. Managed to push another 3.5m people into the higher income tax bracket, using a favoured trick of ‘fiscal drag’, where the tax threshold is raised more slowly than earnings are rising, so that workers end up paying a higher proportion of their income in tax.
  21. Twice shifted the timing of the ‘economic cycle’ in order that the so called “golden rule” would not be missed, resulting in a brazen massaging of the figures.
  22. Ensured that there are now twice as many tax collectors as there are nurses, demonstrating firmly where the government’s priorities lie.
  23. Masterfully convinced people that they are “better off under Labour” even though each family now pays more than £5,000 in extra tax, compared to 1997.

Then let’s take a look at how he has ‘fixed’ things, telling us how at least he was “doing something” as opposed to the Conservatives, who are, according to the supreme leader Mr Brown, the “do nothing party“.

He invested £billions of our money into the Royal Bank of Scotland, who are now expected to report a loss of £28bn. What level of due diligence was exercised before our money was invested into a bank with such massive liabilities? Now, we have a similar story with HBOS, here, losses have been reported at £11bn, same thing, did the government complete any due diligence prior to investing our money? I am not so worried about Lloyds TSB, they must answer to their shareholders, government and Gordon Brown must answer to the taxpayers.

Yet still more £billions of OUR money has been invested into the banking system by Gordon Brown, with the specific aim of easing lending to consumers and business as well as freeing up inter-bank lending. But this has come to nothing. Not satisfied with spending this money, yet more £billions has been pledged or spent on a bank ‘insurance scheme’ and, as is the nature of insurance, we can never truly know the extent of that commitment, other than the fact that with Gordon Brown’s track record, we know it will exceed all expectations. Over £1trillion has been spent or committed, for nothing, we have not been able to see ANY tangible benefit, in terms of what Mr Brown TOLD us we could expect.

In other words, he told us that our money was going to be used to achieve a specific objective or goal and nothing has happened. This time however, Gordon Brown has outdone himself, because nowhere in history, has a single politician spent so much money for so little, or more accurately, no return. Yet he is still there, grinning like a Cheshire cat and snarling at anyone who would dare question his actions. Anyone with an ounce of commonsense, for example, would have known that a 2.5% reduction in VAT would have little or no effect, set against a backdrop of high street retailers discounting up to 50% off the ticket price. But this arrogant little man went ahead, and as a consequence, he has wasted another £12.5bn or our money.

In the last week, much has been said about the fact that many of our most senior bankers have no relevant, professional qualifications. But ask yourself this, what qualifications has Gordon Brown got, (or did he have) that would qualify him to determine our economic future? None, zilch. He would normally be considered to have been qualified by experience, but just look above and you will see what his ‘experience’ leads to. The appointment of an inexperienced politician to the position of Chancellor of what was the 5th largest economy in the world, is akin to asking an engineering apprentice to act as Finance Director of BP.

But we are in a democracy; surely we don’t have to put up with this?

How naive we are as a people, we have been told we are in a democracy and we believed them. What type of democracy allows the coronation of a new prime minister, without any reference to the electorate? What type of democracy allows a party that received just 43% of the vote to have such a massive parliamentary majority? What type of democracy provides the PM with so much power, that he can spend or commit £1trillion without even referring the matter to a commons vote? What type of democracy allows its prime minister to continue damaging the country, its economy and its prospects without any way for the people to put a stop to it? What type of democracy allows a government to renege on a manifesto promise, without any form of recourse from the electorate?

What type of democracy allows a government to force through intrusive and overbearing legislation designed to spy on its own citizens, monitor their travel arrangements, emails, telephone calls, vehicle movements, medical records and share that information with another 780 government and private agencies? What type of democracy allows its government to shatter long held rights to privacy and liberty virtually unchallenged, to the detriment of the people? What type of democracy provides its people with no opportunity to impeach its leader if that person is considered to be acting against the interests of the majority? IT IS NOT A DEMOCRACY, it is an authoritarian dictatorship that serves the government of the time and not the people. We all need to catch a wake up, our whole parliamentary system needs a radical overhaul and members of parliament need to be reminded that they are supposed to serve the people, not themselves. If ever there was a case for the people of this country to have the power to push an eject button, this is it.

We, the people of this country need a way of bringing down a government or removing any minister that fails to act in our best interests, lies, or bullshits, not at a time that suits them, but when it suits us. Better still, we need to be ruled by people like us, not the self-serving, inward looking, expense grabbing, ego driven, twats that are currently lording it over us all. This description is not, of course, limited to the Labour Party, there are many people within other parties that simply do not give a toss about the electorate, other than once every 5 years or so when they would rely on our votes.

Posted in Big Brother, Civil Liberties, Conservatives, General, Labour, Lib Dems, World | Comments (23)

Politicians need a history lesson from 1929

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Politicians need a history lesson from 1929


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.

Posted in Featured, General, Labour, World | Comments (13)

Open letter to Gordon ‘Blank Cheque’ Brown

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Open letter to Gordon ‘Blank Cheque’ Brown


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!

Posted in General, Labour | Comments (2)

Did the government complete due diligence on RBS?

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Did the government complete due diligence on RBS?


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.

Posted in General, Labour | Comments (8)

Will taxpayers lose out to the banks again?

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Will taxpayers lose out to the banks again?


I read a post on the British Politics blog which referred to the statement by an unamed bank official, on Channel 4 News, that “banks were not charities”. Now I agree with the original posting, that it is a bit rich that the same people who came with their begging bowls for a bailout, should now, having received what they wanted, make such a statement. On top of that, they threaten not to pass on any further interest rate cuts, even though they must know that the economy needs this type of monetary stimulus.

This had me thinking, under current rules, the banks are set for another win at the taxpayers expense. At the moment, the banks are making massive write-offs, this means that the government and therefore the taxpayer, will not receive any corporation taxes from the banks. Less tax receipts from the banks, means, ultimately, more will be needed from you and I. Now here is the rub, banks can quite legally carry over losses from one year to another, now given the size of their losses, they could end up not paying any form of corporation tax for several years.

So, not only will they have received taxpayers money to stay afloat, they will contribute nothing to the economy for several years to come. This may be perfectly legal, but it is completely unacceptable. I believe that the government should act now to prevent the banks and any other third party that has received taxpayer funding from being able to carry over past losses, to offset against future profits. Think about it, when we are all having to pay for the excesses of this government in higher taxes, the bankers will be coining it with large bonuses, brought about, in no small part, from the fact that they will not have to pay corporation tax.

It is unlikely that Gordon Brown & Co will be in government when this happens, but at the very least, he should start the ball rolling and David Cameron needs to come out of his shell and insist that something is done. The banks effectively held us to ransom, when they embarked on high risk expansionism, requiring a massive injection of taxpayers funds as well as guarantees, they now intend to hold us to ransom over passing on any future interest rate falls, they must not be allowed to win again. For a government that simply revels in state control, perhaps they should consider getting some over the banks?

Posted in Conservatives, General, Labour, Lib Dems | Comments (3)

UK banks bite the hands that feed them!

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

UK banks bite the hands that feed them!


In my post last month, I suggested, that what this economy needed was a shot in the arm, a package of measures designed not to avoid a recession, because that is impossible, but to reduce the impact on the people of this country. Unlike either of the main two political parties, I suggested a six point plan, which included a dramatic reduction in interest rates and a requirement that the high street lenders pass on the cuts in full.

Of course I am not suggesting that anyone takes any notice of my posts, but I am pleased that one of those points has been implemented, albeit, not as far as I would have wished. The Bank of England has reduced the rates by 1.5% to 3%. I was calling for a cut to 2%. However, if the country was to receive any benefit, the cuts would have to be passed onto borrowers, both domestic and business. This, for the most part is not happening, at least not so far.

Only Lloyds TSB, through their mortgage arm, Cheltenham & Gloucester and the Bank of Ireland have indicated that they will pass the cuts on in full. Now in the case of Lloyds TSB, I suspect their motive was to demonstrate in a tangible way, that whilst their takeover of HBOS will lead to them becoming the largest retail bank in the UK, they have no intention of using their dominance in a negative manner that would reduce competition. We will have to wait and see whether or not that remains the case of course.

However, when it comes to the other banks, their response demonstrates that they have little or no regard to their customers or the people that have bailed their businesses in one form or other. They have only indicated that they have the interest rate decision “under review”. Well that is just not good enough. When the banks struggled, they came, cap in hand to the Bank of England and therefore the taxpayer, to help them with guarantees, cash injections and short-term cash advances. The banks received pretty much whatever they needed, regardless of the impact to the balance sheet of UK Plc or the cost (and risk) to the taxpayer.

Now the banks have a real chance to demonstrate that they appreciate the assistance or lifeline they have been given. Instead, they are, at least for the time being, indicating that they feel little or no obligation towards the wider UK economy, the well-being of its citizens or their customers. Now, yes I know, before people tell me the obvious, they are ‘independent’ financial institutions and must be free to make commercial decisions. However, as soon as they came to the taxpayer to assist them at their time of need, they gained at the very least, a moral obligation to repay us by supporting anything that would assist the taxpayer in their time of need. Which clearly a reduction in interest rates would do.

I am angry with the bankers, very angry and everyone else should be as well. The banks have made £billions over the past 10 years from their customers. Many, have at times, been reckless in their lending practices, and they hold a considerable proportion of the responsibility for where we are today. So do the borrowers, but banks were and should have been the ‘grey’ men, those that provided a balanced view and set lending criteria. The banks are also being very short-sighted.

The higher the interest rates, the more likely that their will be defaults and house repossessions. In the case of the latter, banks often have to sell properties at auction, resulting in returns of at 20-25% below market values to secure a sale. Add this to the fact that many properties have fallen in value and their losses on each property have to be quite staggering. Therefore, wherever practicable, surely they would be better off attempting to ease the burden and keep more people in their homes?

In additon, the higher the interest rates, the less money that is in the economy and the less transactions that will take place. The latter is the bread and butter of the banks, they make money when people and business transact, they benefit from money that is lost in the system for days on end. They do best when their customers feel able to spend. Customers will clearly be more conservative, they will borrow less and many will reduce their debts. But more money in our pockets, means a more responsible nation, because most people will choose to be responsible rather than reckless. In the past, going bankrupt was a painful and drawn out affair, today it is far easier, no-one benefits, least of all the creditors, if people throw the towel in because they can see no way out. The banks will be first in line to suffer if bankruptcies rapidly.

Whilst I am cognisant of the high inter-bank lending rates, these will come down and in all honesty, the reduction in the Bank of England rates by 1.5% will, for and intents and purposes be neutral to the banks.

Whether we do it now or later, I believe we should all punish the banks that have not supported their customers or the economy by passing on the interest rate cuts in full. Particularly, but not exclusively, those that have received assistance from the taxpayers. We should look to move our current accounts to banks that have supported their customers…en-masse. We must hurt them as they are determined to hurt us. Banks make big money from current account transaction charges and the ‘balances’ are used by the banks to reduce their borrowing costs. We must cancel our credit cards with the banks that are associated with not passing on the rate cuts and consider moving our mortgages. Now I appreciate that this may be impossible for people to do right now, though I am going to, but we must remember, that in our hour of need, even when it was obvious why the Bank of England reduced interest rates, the banks stuck their middle finger up to us all. We must return the compliment. Even if we have to bide our time and do it when the banks least expect it.

I urge everyone to remember each and everyone of these banks that have screwed us and make them pay, make their shareholders fully aware that there will be a medium and long-term price for their refusal to come to the aid of this country. There will be a price for their decision to ignore their moral responsibilities and helping those that helped them. End of rant!

Posted in General, Labour | Comments (3)

Big Brother Database or Tax Cuts?

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Big Brother Database or Tax Cuts?


Yesterday, I wrote an article suggesting how this government could reduce taxes to help stimulate growth in the economy. This was partly a Keynesian approach, given I argued that it was possible that these tax cuts could be self-funding, if my proposals worked. The reason for this was, if we do nothing, there is likely to be a significant surge of people claiming benefits, rather than generating income for government coffers. My proposal was, if the government was going to borrow to invest, they would be better off doing so, with a natural stimulus, rather than bringing forward capital building projects which would only benefit a small section of the economy.

My proposal, amongst other things, was that government should reduce the basic rate of personal tax by 5%. Over a period of 3 years, this would cost around £45bn, less than 10% of the cost of the banking bailout. However, by allowing us to retain more of our own money, we could decide how and where we would spend the extra money we were ‘permitted’ to retain. If we were to spend it in much the same was as we did before the crash, my argument was and is, that more small and medium sized business would survive and therefore more people would remain in employment. I noted that some 13.5m people were employed by small businesses and these same companies accounted for, just shy of 50% of UK Plc’s output. However, I also noted, that the Keynesian approach was that government should adopt a balanced budget, that is to say, they should cut back government spending in certain areas, to allow them to invest in other areas. Having read my post this morning, addressing the usual, inexcusable typos, I decided that I should expand on my own theory.

For example, my pet hate is the government’s proposed Big Brother Database, which I think is a massive attack on the civil liberties of every person in this country and an unforgivable intrusion into our right to privacy. That said, this government, if it goes ahead with this initiative, is expected to spend some £12bn on this massive Big Brother Database. Now quite apart from the fact that we know this government has never yet managed to bring an IT project in on budget, the figure that needs to be allocated is huge.

Therefore, the question I wanted to ask was:
Which would you prefer a Big Brother Database that infringes our civil liberties and intrudes on our privacy at a cost of £12bn or an immediate 4% cut in the basic rate of income tax for at least 1 year? From 20% to 16%? – I know what my answer will be.

Then I went on to look at other large government capital expenditure projects, this time I focused in on the much criticised NHS Database Project. It is worth noting that the original cost was estimated to be £2.3bn, by 2006 that had rocketed to £12bn, with some independent estimates suggesting it could cost as much as £32 billion. Most medical professionals question the viability of this project, the public have barely been consulted on such a massive project and even though some £2bn has already been spent, there is little to show for it. So, lets be generous, and take a middle figure between the governments estimate of £12bn and the independent estimates of £32. This leaves us with a likely cost of £22bn.

Therefore, my question is:
Which would you prefer, to shelve or cancel the NHS Database or receive an immediate cut in the basic rate of income tax of 5% for at least 18 months? The reason I have said ‘at least’ is because if this additional money prevents people losing their jobs and claiming benefits, then it would be possible to extend the period of the tax cut, perhaps indefinitely.

So what of the ID Database Project. Yes, I know, this government is completely obsessed with databases, it is a pity, they do not also consider the massive security risks associated with having all of this information on computers. However, I digress, this particular project, is simply aimed at having all of our personal ID information in one place. The cost, an eye-watering £5.4bn.

So, once again, my question is, which would you prefer, an ID database where only the government and its agents see the benefit, or an immediate cut in the basic rate of income tax of 2%, for a least one year, from 20% to 18%?

My basic premis is that this government has an obsession for massive information technology projects, most of which have been so poorly considered, specified and planned that they are either doomed to failure or massive cost overruns. This governments track record of waste is well documented and appalling. Most of these pet projects are not wanted by the public and it has to be said, the vast majority will allow government to know everything their is to know about every single legal citizen in this country. Because this government is obsessed with using IT to spy and control its subjects. At this time, the biggest threat to our security (apart from the government itself) and our well being, is the state of our economy, not terrorism. Yet no-one from government has suggested shelving, postponing or cancelling any of these Big Brother databases. Even though, combined, these 3 projects alone, will cost a staggering £40bn. If the government were to add an extra £5bn, we could all benefit from a reduction in the basic rate of income tax of 5%. From 20% to 15%, for a period of 3 years, if we are lucky, this would be able to see us through this period of recession. In addition, as I have argued earlier, if this money is invested into the economy by us, then jobs could be saved, government would benefit from the revenues brought about by indirect taxes, business taxes and fewer unemployed claiming benefits.

So, my final question, is which would you prefer? Government to spend £40bn on 3 highly questionable information technology projects at a time of this massive economic downturn, or more money in your pocket. £40bn on IT projects, or a 5% cut in the basic rate of tax for 5 years. QED!

Footnote:
I have also argued strongly for a significant, simultaneous cut in the Bank of England bases rates from 4.5%, to 2%, with all taxpayer funded banks being ‘required’ to pass on this cut to their customers. This will reduce the number of repossessions and/or increase the amount of money available to us, to reinvest into the economy. I am sure there will be economists out there that can or will pick holes in my arguments, well go ahead, someone needs to come up with some ideas, because it is pretty clear to me, this government hasn’t got a clue, the Conservative Party has backed themselves into a corner with their negative, one size fits all ‘austerity’ assessment of our economic future and none of the other parties have any influence. Sad, but true!

Posted in Big Brother, Civil Liberties, Conservatives, General, Labour, Lib Dems | Comments (7)

Gordon Brown, its time to introduce tax cuts

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Gordon Brown, its time to introduce tax cuts


At prime ministers questions time, Gordon Brown, once again, decided to take all the credit for “creating 3 million new jobs” and none of the responsibility for the ‘bust’ brought about by the credit funded boom that was his creation. Instead, he avoided all of the questions he was asked and once again, came out with the same old mantra, that the problem was the fault of the Americans and the bankers. Nothing new there then.

He did imply, however, that he believed that the government should invest in times of recession, a sort of embracing of the Keynesian approach. However, John Maynard Keynes did not suggest that government should simply spend, but that there should be a balance. He also argued, that it was possible that if government used borrowed money wisely, it could be self-financing. For example, most people want to work, which means that given the opportunity, they will not be a burden on the state, but an asset. In addition, companies want to sell their goods, at a fair price, employ people, succeed and therefore, be an asset to the state.

To achieve this, people need to have money to spend, yet the state takes nearly 50% of what we all earn. That is way, way too much. A reduction in direct taxation, would be much less expensive than building new schools and hospitals earlier than was originally intended. Moreover, a construction boom will be very limited in terms of assisting the wider economy. What we need is more money in peoples pockets, which they can invest in buying goods and services offered by retailers, service providers and manufacturers. In other words, a natural stimulus, not a false one.

If people feel poorer, then they will push their employers to pay them more, this adds a further burden to struggling businesses and places inflationary pressures on the wider economy. In addition, public sector workers, who account for some 20% of all employees in the UK are starting to get increasingly vocal about higher wage increases and they are backing this up with threats of industrial action. This is no good to anyone. Furthermore, if they succeed in getting higher wages, this will be a cost borne directly by the taxpayer and will inevitably result in a cut in services as the public sector attempts to balance the books.

We know that a boom based on easy credit is not the answer, nor does the equity in a property really amount to tangible wealth. The Keynesian approach advocated, amongst other things that borrowing to provide tax cuts can provide an aggregate increase in demand and, that properly targeted, it could be self-financing, because demand will create or save jobs and people that are employed, are not a burden on the state. In addition, companies that are selling goods, will be pay tax and sell goods that, for the most part, attract VAT.

A cut in direct taxation would have an immediate and tangible affect on the publics ability (not necessarily willingness) to spend. If this would was coupled with a substantial, perhaps 2 or 2.5% cut in bank base rates, then the benefits would multiply as would the potential speed of recovery. The government has indicated that they want to spend £12bn to create a database to spy on the public, apart from the fact that this is both unnecessary and a massive attack on our civil liberties, it is also something that is a nice to have, rather than a need to have. That notwithstanding, even if they proceeded with this database, the chances are, the contract would be awarded to an American company! Yet this £12bn, could ‘fund’ a 5% cut is direct taxation for nearly 3 years, if you were to ask the public what they would sooner have, there are no prizes for guessing their likely preference.

In addition, the government is intending to proceed with the £13bn NHS computer system. There is no proof that the system will work, nor has their been a sensible cost/benefit analysis. This project should be shelved and the money used to invest into small and medium sized businesses. I wrote an article yesterday, outlining some of my own ideas to assist small businesses. These companies employ 50% of our workers, some 13.5m people and provide nearly half of our output. An investment in this area, could secure jobs, companies and tax revenues.

It is true, governments cannot prevent a recession, but they can, through careful management of their (our) finances, targeted initiatives and the shelving of non-essential investment programmes, reduce the length and severity. Had the conservative party not nailed their colours to the mast, with an austerity assessment of the UK economy, claiming that “the cupboard was bare”, then they could have proposed this type of solution. Instead, they must either say that they got it wrong, or the Labour government, if they are bright enough to steal the initiative, will be able to come out of this smelling of roses.

For what it is worth, I am not convinced that this government, or the other political parties will want to endorse my suggestions, because they seem more interested in telling us what won’t work, rather than what might. It is this dithering and indecision that will damage this economy. Whatever action is taken it needs to be bold, decisive and meaningful. Therefore, in summary, my suggestions are as follows:

  1. Shelve the £13bn investment in the NHS computer system
  2. Cancel the proposed £12bn Big Brother Britain database
  3. Reduce direct taxation by 5% for a minimum period of 3 years
  4. Implement a package of incentives and tax reductions for small business
  5. Instruct the independent Bank of England to slash rates from 4.5% to 2%
  6. Ensure that all taxpayer funded banks pass on the full cut immediately, which should encourage the others to follow or lose

My suggestion will cost a tiny fraction of what the government has already invested into the banking system and provide a tangible stimulus to the economic activity of this country. Above all, it may just ensure that we can watch the news and receive some good news. If the government introduced, or the other parties proposed such an initiative, I do not believe anyone, other than a few discredited bankers and economists (who already got it wrong), would criticise the move. The bottom line is it is our money and we should be allowed to keep more of it and decide where we will invest it.

Posted in Conservatives, General, Labour, Lib Dems | Comments (3)

Advertise Here