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.

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?

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!

If you have heard him say it once, you have heard him repeat it 100 times. Gordon Brown keeps telling is that the UK economic fundamentals are strong. Now I am no economist and that will become self-evident when reading this blog, but I am blessed with a little commonsense and logic. My conclusion, the so called fundamentals don’t look so great from where I am sitting, so common Gordon enlighten us.

At the CBI Scotland Annual Dinner, Gordon Brown outlines what he considered those fundamentals to be, they are;

“First, Bank of England independence has given us low interest rates founded on sound macroeconomic management and so despite increases in the prices of food and fuel - and I understand the impact this is having on families and businesses - the sound framework for monetary policy which we have established means inflation remains far below the double-digit levels we saw in the earlier decades. And this will help ensure that interest rates remain similarly low by historical standards.

Second, the most flexible labour market in Europe means that even though unemployment has risen in recent months, employment remains close to record highs - and wage pressures are subdued, led by our own responsible decisions on public sector pay. And with the investment in the New Deal and our latest welfare reforms there is more support than ever before to help people back into work and to fill the 600,000 vacancies still in our economy. And a balanced approach to migration allows businesses to benefit from the specific skills that economic migrants can bring to our country and improves the responsiveness of our labour market to fluctuating demand.

Third - the underlying financial strength of British business reflects its improved efficiency - driven by your hard work in achieving the fastest growth in average productivity in the past decade across the whole of the G7. Britain remains a magnet for overseas investment and our export performance is improving, with our manufacturing productivity growth strong.

Fourth, low debt. The significant debt repayments we made since 1997 mean we have cut public debt as a share of national income from 43 per cent in 1997 to today’s 37.3 per cent. This means that, unlike in earlier economic slowdowns, we can sustain our ongoing commitment to investment in fixed capital infrastructure - up 58 per cent in real terms in the last decade. In 1997 we invested £144.5 billion. Today it is £229 billion. Even after inflation a 58 per cent rise.

And - while  no government can hope to protect people from the full impact of the global credit crunch or the worldwide spike  in commodity prices - I am determined that we should do what we reasonably can to help families and businesses through this difficult period of adjustment. So we will back up our investment commitments with careful interventions designed to provide targeted support for hard-pressed families - such as this week’s home-owners’ support package and the £120 a year tax cut for basic rate taxpayers that will start to feed into pay packets later this month.

Fifth – we are making all the long term decisions, difficult as they are, to boost our competitiveness; on energy, planning, transport, housing, digital technology, science and skills. And the 2002 Enterprise Act has given us one of the most robust, independent competition regimes anywhere in the world. The support for British enterprise - strengthened over the last decade with the launch of Enterprise Capital Funds, the Small Firms Loan Guarantee and administrative burden reduction targets. Britain today has four and a half million businesses - more than ever before. And the OECD says Britain has the lowest barriers to entrepreneurship of any OECD country. ”

Now lets have layman’s take on this, as I said, I am no expert on economics, but I am one of the people that is expected to understand what the government is telling us.

Fundamental One

One of the primary movers in determining interest rates is inflation and as we have seen over the past few months, Gordon Brown is limited in what he can do to control inflation. Yes he can keep public sector wage deals low, but he cannot control commodity prices such as fuel and food, which can have, as we have seen, a significant impact on inflation. Furthermore, government borrowing can also affect inflation, but Gordon Brown’s fancy footwork has managed to keep long term debt such as the PFI initiatives off the government balance sheet. This may have the affect of massaging government borrowings, thereby providing a knock-on affect in terms of lower interest rates.

Fundamental Two

Gordon Brown goes on to lecture us that the second part of the fundamentals is a flexible workforce, low unemployment, low wage settlements, economic migrants and welfare reforms. Really? Firstly, there is no explanation of what a flexible workforce is, but whatever it is, the government cannot claim the credit for it. The low unemployment figure doesn’t stand up to close scrutiny either. There are now 1.7, people out of work and on top of that those claiming disability benefits have risen to 2.5m, many of which, under the old system, would have been classed as unemployed. So, once again, this would appear to be a deliberate manipulation of the true jobless total.

Granted, the government can be credited with reaching low wage settlements with the public sector, although their ability to maintain these agreements may be questionable given the increasing militancy of the the public sector unions. But there is something else that Gordon Brown has omitted to include here. Many public sector employees benefit from excellent, final salary pension schemes and, even though many of these have been withdrawn in the private sector, Gordon has not had the courage to likewise in the public sector. Therefore, whether Gordon Brown likes it or not, it is an inconvenient truth that pensions are a cost of employment and it is estimated that our public sector pensions deficit is some £890bn, yet the government does not include this obligation anywhere in their figures.

So what about economic migrants, who do they benefit? Well yes, they benefit private companies that cannot or more likely, will not offer a wage sufficient to get ‘local’ workers to join their business, even though we have 1.7m unemployed. But what about the hidden cost, economic migrants can bring their families if they wish and many do, so when they are here, we must provide them with, at the very least, free education and free healthcare. So, in effect, by offering these benefits free, we, the tax payer are effectively subsidising employers looking for cheap labour. As the government knows only too well, these economic migrants could not possibly pay enough in tax and national insurance to cover the cost of these free benefits. If I was Mr Brown, I would be keeping my mouth shut, unless of course, he thinks we are all too stupid to work it out.

Fundamental Three

Gordon claims that we have the fastest growth in average productivity in the past decade across the whole of the G7. This may be true and therefore I will accept it at face value. But, can he really claim that their is an underlying financial strength in British business? Over the past few months, we have seen a high street bank have to be rescued by the tax payer, we have had a series of profit warnings from major retailers and manufacturers, we have had a number of high profile companies having to go to the stock market for more money to shore up their balance sheets and we have seen the failure of several airlines and the UK’s third largest travel companies. This doesn’t look strong.

In addition, we are now starting to see the highest level of business failures in over a decade, particularly small and medium sized businesses. Gordon Brown would do well to be remember that it is the SME market that has created many of the new jobs that he takes credit for, but also, because they cannot afford to go offshore or look at fancy methods of tax avoidance, they loyally pay their taxes. So what has he done for them?

Despite promised to the contrary, he has saddled them with a mountain of red tape, punitive fines and penalties for even the smallest misdemeanor in respect of tax or VAT returns. He has ensured through legislation that, the SME employer now has to have expensive experts on hand either as employees or consultants to advise on health and safety issues and employment issues as they have become one of the largest burdens on any small or medium sized business. In doing so, Gordon Brown, his cohorts and civil servants have demonstrated that they know nothing about running a business of this size.

Further, as a result of reduced central government funding to local authorities, business are having to pay ever higher business rates, even though they are getting less and less in return. Typically business rates now equate to 50% of the SME’s lease or rental costs. That is not business friendly, it is punishment. Far from taking credit for the business sector success, certainly in terms of the SME’s, he and his penal policies have made it increasingly difficult for them to survive as will be demonstrated over the coming months with a disproportionate number of SME business failures. You mark my words Mr Brown. This government also withdrew tapered tax relief a few short years after it was introduced to encourage entrepreneurship.

Fundamental Four

This takes the biscuit, Gordon Brown claims that government debt, as a percentage of national income has fallen from 43% in 1997, to 37.3%. As I have mentioned before, this is not a true figure, it is massaged. Mr Brown has become adept at using fancy footwork to ensure that government obligations do not end up on the government balance sheet. Now, I am not suggesting that he can’t do this, because he has, but what is the point in kidding himself, unless of course, the plan is to kid us? Between now and 2032, we will have to pay back some £170bn through the various PFI schemes used to pay for our schools, hospitals and other infrastructure projects. This doesn’t appear as a borrowing, so what is it? Then there is the debt from the failed Network Rail project and Northern Rock, as well as countless other obligations, why don’t these show up?

This man, even claimed in his speech, that he is using government intervention to assist families and business, bragging that basic rate tax payers will receive £120 a year in tax cuts. Have I missed something, this is the man that though he could rip us off using a classic trick of smoke and mirrors, got caught out and had to back down, Then he is trying to claim that it is some gift from the government. What an arrogant, deluded little man he is. 

Fundamental Five

This is really a more detailed repetition of Gordon’s ‘Fundamental Three’, but there are many more grandiose claims that do not bear scrutiny, but I haven’t got the time to analyse them one by one, so perhaps Gordon can enlighten as all be telling us how many of the 4.5m businesses he alludes to have actually been able to benefit from the Enterprise Capital Funds and the Small Firms Loan Guarantee? Precisely what red tape burdens has he removed and does this assessment include the new red tape this government has introduced.

I would also be very keen to hear precisely how this government can claim credit for boosting our competitiveness; on energy, planning, transport, housing, digital technology, science and skills. I don’t remember any of the companies operating in this sector thanking the government for their contribution. He also claims that our exports are improving, could this be anything to do with the fact that Sterling has weakened against all of the other major currencies, one of the primary reasons that our bills and inflation is rising, given we are a net importer of goods.

There are also other things that a government should be doing, such as planning. Gordon Brown makes no mention of the fact that as a direct consequence of his government’s prevaricating over nuclear power stations, there is a very real risk that we could suffer major power shortages in  3 or 4 years few years time, as the older power stations are de-commissioned and new one’s which take 10 years to build, are not ready. We could be reduced to third world levels of power shortages, with an estimated reduction of some 35%, affecting every family, every home and every business in the country. There is your legacy Mr Brown.

As I have stated at the outset, I am not a financial or economic expert, but when I analyse what Gordon Brown has said, against what had actually happened, I see a massive gulf. Therefore, this man must be deluding himself, or attempting to hoodwink the public. Either way, it is not good for us or our country. Step aside Mr Brown, before it is too late.