It looks as if the Euro and Greece have bought themselves some more time with the bailout at the end of last week. I am surprised at how little comment there has been about the €1019bn input from the ECB (European Central Bank) - this was in two instalments and took the form of cheap loans for Banks (€489bn in December 2011 and €530bn at the end of last month). There are probably a number of reasons for this - such as the need to provide support to banks adversely affected by the Greek "default", a signal that the euro was not going to be blown a way by the markets (well not yet anyway) and that such a well timed manoeuvre could out flank some Hedge Traders. However the other side is that this expansion of the ECB's balance sheet is backed by European (Eurozone directly) taxpayers!
On BBC Radio 4 last Thursday a discussion took place in the Business about the bailout and Hedge Funds. If I heard correctly the Hedge Trader had made a loss on the Greek bonds but was covering himself by shorting the Banks. Might not have worked this time! The Hedge Trader was clear that it was not his job to moralise what was permissible in the market and even claimed that their activities encouraged the Regulatory Authorities to do their job better! This is just another version of that juvenile argument - question "Why did you do that?" answer "Because I can". There is no moral compass here as distinct from some in the City of London who believe that without it regulation will be severe and some activities will simply be outlawed. And some might say why not given the mess they got us into and the fact that it is Jill and Jack taxpayer who is taking the ultimate risk! This one has a long way to run yet.
Monday 12 March 2012
Monday 5 March 2012
Executive Mayor for Salford
The non-voters won the referendum held on 26th January. The turnout was just 18.1% - with 17,344 voting for and 13,653 against. So while the proposition was carried 55.59% to 44.41% those figures represent just 10.12% of the electorate for and 7.98% against. My first point therefore is to question whether there is a mandate for such a change and to ask also should there be a threshold which must be achieved before any such proposition is carried - say 35% of the electorate voting. The turnout also strongly suggests that the proposition has not exactly set the world on fire let alone Salford.
One of the main proponents of the proposition was a Mr Berg who is not a resident of the City but who does own property in Salford. Mr Berg was prosecuted last year by the City Council and was ordered to tidy up a property in Irlam and costs were awarded against him (see Manchester Evening News 30th September 2011). Mr Berg is appealing that decision. The other main proponent of the proposition are the English Democrats whose policies do support elected Mayors as well as stopping mass immigration/asylum seekers, repeal of the Human Rights Act and withdrawal from the European Convention, leaving the EU and an end to political correctness (see www.voteenglish.org). They have been successful in one area - Doncaster. Their Mayor was described in the Guardian (www. guardian.co.uk 28th July 2011) as a "bumbling little englander". Reading some of the social media in the area there appears to be a strong opinion that this has been a disaster for the town and that they are a laughing stock.
On the general issue of elected Mayors an edition of BBC West Midlands (Night Mayor - 19th October 2006) declared that such referenda encouraged protest votes (this would seem to be the case in Salford) and allowed "mavericks and self publicists" to impose themselves on (at best) an apathetic electorate.
This angle would be supported here if one reviews the literature put out by those supporting the proposition. The case was not one for constitututional change but very simply anti-Labour e.g. "Do you want to half (?) your Council Tax?" and "Can you afford another 10 years of costly Salford Labour?" This is nothing less than ranting demagoguery. They are naive in the extreme and guilty of deceiving the electorate!
I shall be writing more following the selection of Ian Stewart as the Labour Candidate and Karen Garrido as the Conservative.
One of the main proponents of the proposition was a Mr Berg who is not a resident of the City but who does own property in Salford. Mr Berg was prosecuted last year by the City Council and was ordered to tidy up a property in Irlam and costs were awarded against him (see Manchester Evening News 30th September 2011). Mr Berg is appealing that decision. The other main proponent of the proposition are the English Democrats whose policies do support elected Mayors as well as stopping mass immigration/asylum seekers, repeal of the Human Rights Act and withdrawal from the European Convention, leaving the EU and an end to political correctness (see www.voteenglish.org). They have been successful in one area - Doncaster. Their Mayor was described in the Guardian (www. guardian.co.uk 28th July 2011) as a "bumbling little englander". Reading some of the social media in the area there appears to be a strong opinion that this has been a disaster for the town and that they are a laughing stock.
On the general issue of elected Mayors an edition of BBC West Midlands (Night Mayor - 19th October 2006) declared that such referenda encouraged protest votes (this would seem to be the case in Salford) and allowed "mavericks and self publicists" to impose themselves on (at best) an apathetic electorate.
This angle would be supported here if one reviews the literature put out by those supporting the proposition. The case was not one for constitututional change but very simply anti-Labour e.g. "Do you want to half (?) your Council Tax?" and "Can you afford another 10 years of costly Salford Labour?" This is nothing less than ranting demagoguery. They are naive in the extreme and guilty of deceiving the electorate!
I shall be writing more following the selection of Ian Stewart as the Labour Candidate and Karen Garrido as the Conservative.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)