Westminster in Never Never Land

Westminster in Never Never Land

The notion that Parliamentary Selections are not campaigned for in any of our Political Parties is another one of those insulting fictions put about by those who want us to believe in Never Never Land (i.e. We are not allowed to grow up). The arrogance of those in the Westminster village is almost beyond belief. So let's have some home truths:

1) Diplomats lie;

2) When found out they claim national interest;

3) Politicians when found out they have supported those lies claim national security - when exposing their hypocrisy is what a mature democracy should have!;

4) Spies spy – that is their job;

5) There is little control over Spies activity because they always call in aid security;

6) From time immemorial bureaucrats (Spies are bureaucrats) have widened and broadened their remit such that personal freedoms are threatened;

7) Having a debate about a possible referendum on Europe while the economy is still 5% smaller than 5 years ago is asinine;

8) Engaging in Party Political bickering when real wages are in decline for the majority and have been for years is puerile;

9) A Prime Minister whose only defence is to attack the opposition (in this case aided by his Dingo Bad Mouther) belies the poverty of his case;

10) Five years after the financial crisis not one Financier and/or Banker has been prosecuted – while we pay for their crimes and they sail off into the sunset with a barrow load of their ill-gotten gains;

11) The metropolitan media live off these stupid stories trying to set the agenda and frame the discussion when ordinary people want some relief from the misery imposed on them by Neanderthal economics;

12) The Welfare State is being dismantled while Conservative MP's have a barbecue at No. 10;

Yes this is a rant. But just to let you know (i.e. Westminster elite and wannabes) we have your number, we know you game – your time may be limited. Real mature democracy has to come!!

Beware Politicians saying trust me

Below is a copy of a letter sent to the Independent 0n 13th June following an article by the Columnist Steve Richards.

Dear Sir,
             Has Steve Richards become an apologist for authoritarianism? (Whistleblowers are more often enemies of liberty than friends of it - Voices 13th June 2013). For democracy to survive the citizen should adopt a sceptical stance in relation to claims by politicians and others that NSA operations (under the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act) were within the law and did not monitor the on line activities of Americans. The latter was proven false within 48 hours of President Obama's assertion as the US Government confirmed that it had requested millions of phone records from Verizon to include call duration, location and the numbers of both parties on individual calls. This can only be a pre-cursor to actual monitoring so the words uttered are our old friend the distinction without a difference. The increasing use of the Act can be seen from the following numbers of approved court orders under the FISA:
2009       1329
2011       1745
2012       1856
In that 4 year period only one application was declined.
Having shown that the claim that the FISA did not apply to Americans is false then surely the wording of the Act and the requirement for court orders provide protection for the individual. However that only applies to the USA - no such protection exists elsewhere and the Act (FISA) permits the NSA to investigate any foreign country where it believes US foreign policy interests may be affected. What about the rights of UK and European citizens? Are we a lesser breed?
Steve Richards is also being disingenuous where he states that much of the information about PRISM could have been discerned from publicly available sources followed by thoughtful analysis. Yet it is also claimed that this disclosure has seriously compromised activities via NSA/GCHQ/PRISM. I do not believe that actual or potential terrorists will have missed that!!
As to unintended consequences these are inevitable as would be the case should a Communications Data Bill be enacted in this country. My experience and history show that it is the nature of these bureaucracies to deepen and broaden their activities only to be pulled back after a crisis e.g wrongful imprisonment (remember the Birmingham "bombers").
Yes we do need to be protected against terrorist activities and yes there is a great deal of apathy. That does not mean that elected politicians should simply patronise their electorate by saying leave it to us but should actively engage in a debate about the acceptable balance between security and privacy.


Resources used:
Channel 4 News 10th June interview with Casper Bowden
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-china-22878591
13th June 2013
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-22839609
13th June 2013
http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/06/11/us-usa-security-eu-idUSBRE95A0K920130611
Independent 13th June 2013
http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/42d8613a-d378-11e2...
p.s. See also http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/daniel-ellsberg-nsa-leaker-snowden-made-the-right-call/2013/07/07/0b46d96c-e5b7-11e2-aef3-339619eab080_story_1.html  (published 8th July 2013)

Labour Struggling with its Past

Labour Struggling with its Past

It was almost a shambles as Labour tried to re-position itself in relation to the national budget/austerity and welfare. Liam Byrne on the Sunday Politics (BBC 1 9^th June 2013) was opaque to the point of complete obscurity - he seemed not to have been fully briefed this applies to a number of other MPs when asked (McGovern [Wirral South] Daily Politics 10th June). Smacks of someone not quite sure what is being done nor why!!

Is re-positioning necessary? Given the political timescales that operate in our system the answer is very probably yes plus the pressure the media has been putting on Labour these past few weeks to come up with some concrete policies. This, in part, is a reflection of the success of the Government in portraying Labour as perennially negative as to reform and therefore not capable of dealing with the real issues of budget and austerity. In addressing the issues many would wish that an approach which drew a more complete picture rather than ad-hoc adjustments to existing positions would help. But we are where we are and now it has to be dealt with.

Dealing with the points above as to why and what. The repositioning is necessary as the General Election is less than 2 years away. Clearly the overhang of blame (partial if not wholly, depending on your personal balance of objectivity versus prejudice) has not been washed away (take note Mr Balls) else Labour's lead in the Opinion Polls would be in the upper teens not bouncing along at 5%. And it is not only the polls - just talk to people they know the score - most of them have lived through it unlike many in the shelter of Westminster and Whitehall!

What to do about the budget deficit? Despite what we might wish for there does appear to be resistance to annual public expenditure exceeding more than 40% of GDP (in normal times and in the UK {for a different take look at Sweden}). Money Lenders (for that is what the Bond Markets do) have regard to that figure although politicians can engender or destroy confidence at the slip of the tongue. I am not saying I support this way of doing things - it is the way things are and likely to be so for many years to come. So the deficit has to come down and (football chant) "We all agree reduce the deficit". However simply reducing expenditure in a random way can lead to what Civil Servants politely call un-planned for outcomes e.g. reducing some benefits will reduce income and therefore spending will decrease which in itself will hold back growth which means a greater demand for some benefits - a downward spiral. Some reductions e.g. Disability Allowances where the cost of the additional administration (greater and more rigorous assessments) exceeds expected savings by a factor of at least 50. This is of course nasty politics by the government because if anyone had to be blamed for the financial situation it is not those on disability. Not only is it nasty but it is stupid - they usually go hand in hand. So deciding what is not at all easy. All the more reason to have a growth strategy combined with deficit reduction. Which brings me to getting people to support what you might wish to do. Overwhelmingly people (when asked about benefit recipients) dislike the apparent non contribution that they make. This has to be addressed! It is the main way in which Labour can reclaim credibilty for its 'welfarism'. This principle of definite contribution means that some form of "workfare" has to be introduced. However this can only be the case where the NMW is vigorously enforced and the "Living Wage" becomes adopted widely. Many in Labour will dislike that idea in which case they will have to seek a more electorally successful policy if it exists. Additionally measures to ensure the proper payment of tax (including a Wealth Tax) by corporations and individuals have to go hand in hand with the restructuring of welfare. Labour must also make clear which parts of the welfare budget are sacrosanct and which are not.

Allowing the media to pick ad hoc which policies to discuss is (and always has been) lazy communication. Time for careful thought and much better preparation!

Resources used:

BBC 2 Daily Politics

BBC 1 Sunday Politics

Independent 8,10,11 June 2013

Sunday Telegraph 9 June 2013

www.heritage.org

Margaret Thatcher

I thought I had better get my two "pen'orth" in as everyone else appears to be so doing. I lived through that period and was engaged in many struggles against her policies. This is not however going to be a rant - I hope it will be a more balanced assessment. MT obviously believed in the power of markets - we now know that, simply applied, this belief is dangerous leading to corruption and enormous inequalities occasioning social breakdown. On the other hand markets do offer the possibility of economic growth and wealth creation. MT shew that it need not be inevitable that the future for Great Britain (in the last decades of the 20th century) would be managing decline. The "big idea" was implemented - freeing up capital markets, floating currency rate, liberalisation of markets and de-regulation. As is so often the case the full implications of such policies had not been properly gauged - if ever that is possible. Consequences in Great Britain were the destruction of manufacturing industries and the elimination of some basic industries (Coal and Steel). With that a new moneyed class was created that traded money or its derivatives while those displaced by these changes were thrown out of work and progressively pauperised. Apologists for MT will say this was not foreseen nor intended but sometimes it is better in politics to own up and say (at least) we should have done better. We are still living with these consequences today. No work contributing to family breakdown and welfare dependency. The destruction of work communities leading to the disappearance of geographical communities with resultant increased crime and misanthropy. "There is no such thing as society" means it's every person for themselves and less concern for the consequences (see City Traders for example).    
Maybe the country needed that kind of shock. Certainly we have witnessed the end of the dream of state socialism so the task for progressives is to marry economic prosperity, a place in the nations of the world and societal strength at home rather than the destructive militant individualism that was the central tenet of MT's beliefs and programme. 

Reducing Greed

If you have money to invest should you consider where and how it is invested or should you just look for the greatest possible return without considering the implications of that decision. Now before all those investors come back and say we always put our money into things that we would be happy with let me ask how it is that so much of our money is invested in countries that are not democracies (the biggest being China) or run by despots (just think of oil - Saudi Arabia) or where working conditions for the people who have to do the physical labour are not what we would accept (Bangladesh) or whose Human Rights record is shameful (Uzbekistan, Burma). This is not an attack on globalization but we do have a choice!! as to where we invest. Delegating that responsibility to Fund Managers is a cop out not a sufficient reason. The consequence of this global investment strategy is that rates of return are greater outside Europe but that is not without effects in Europe to which I shall refer in a moment. The chase after high rates of return means that local investment i.e. GB and Europe have to compete with economies whose wage rates for example might be one hundredth of those locally in GB and Europe. However if this nonsense is to be addressed then we should start at home and this is what I wish to comment upon here.

A good example would be the Private Finance Initiative (PFI). These contracts for government projects/facilities are typically for 25 to 30 years and predominantly are design, build and operate e.g a Hospital or School. As a government project/facility there are a very safe investment i.e. the level of risk is very low! How is it then that in negotiations the private sector seeks to show that it is risky and therefore they have to be paid what many would consider exorbitant if not extortionate rates. And those negotiations also have extortionate fees paid by the tax payer! Why is it therefore that rates of return on these projects/facilities have to be similar to those in the developing world. If truth be told our greed condemns Bangladeshi textile workers to a (short) life of poverty!

So starting at home:
PFI
1) Enforce re-financing to reflect current (UK) interest rates with the savings shared. To my certain knowledge finance rates were set at around 7.5% - this could easily be reduced to 3.5% (Bank of England is currently 0.5%). This should be applied retrospectively. On present rates none of the schemes would be value for money when compared with Public Sector provision.
2) Independent forensic audit of each scheme paid for by the company and provided to the Public Accounts Committee of the House Of Commons. Most providers have used serpent like PR where similar questions have been raised saying, "We operate "open book"". It is, of course, nothing of the sort! Within a nano second that refuge of the snake oil salesperson appears in the form of "commercial confidentiality". These are publicly funded projects - we have a right to consider whether we are being cheated. I think most would agree we are so it is up to those commercial entities to prove that is not the case - after all we are paying!
3) Where a price escalator exists then this should be based on CPI rather than RPI - if it is good enough for Public Service pensioners and wage negotiations its good enough for them.
4) Fees in preparation for and/or adjustments to PFI contracts may only be levied following full and open competition for the work.
5) A new provision to be applied to existing and future contracts of "Indigenous provider comparison" such that the recipient of the PFI service can determine that they are not being "ripped off" - the £200 to change a light bulb scam.

The purpose of these measures would be to properly reflect the security of these contracts with the very low level of risk and thereby give rise to a more realistic appreciation of the necessary rate of return. So those financiers who would not get out of bed for a rate of return of less than 10% to 12.5% could stay there. Expectations should reduce and more stability should help to develop ethical investment. Rates of return of around 5% for these projects would still be good (Long term rates over 80 0r 90 years have been about 6.5% in {see Independent 21/03/2013 p.55 Satyajitt Das}). The present conditions can now be seen to have many more disadvantages than advantages so it is time to change! Since it is public money then this is all the more urgent because aren't we all in this together.
    

All in this together?

What would be necessary to show, that in dealing with our economic difficulties. we are all in this together?
This could be difficult as many seem to have made up their mind that this is just another ruse by the wealthy and powerful to pauperize the already disadvantaged. Let's just look at the state of play in Europe now (March 2013) - Greece - further General Strikes planned, unemployment approaching 30%, hospitals finding it difficult to obtain drugs; Spain 26% unemployment - under 25's approaching 55%; Slovenia - Conservative government near to collapse due to public demonstrations against austerity; and Italy where many seem to have concluded that if comedians have been running the country for decades rather than have an amateur get a professional in!! (Beppe Grillo). Even in staid Switzerland the electorate has just mandated it's government (despite it's opposition) to limit severely corporate pay and bonuses.  A reasoned assessment would lead one to conclude that the the limits of what is politically acceptable/feasible are close by!!
Meanwhile serpentine PR people from corporates and banks try and tell us that the remedy is more of the same when the same is precisely that which got us into this mess in the first place. The political class, wealthy and powerful need to get real. In the UK 40 hours on the national minimum wage gives a person a take home pay of £216.98 per week (£942.83 pcm). A one bedroom flat in this area costs a minimum of £300 pcm - average for a family property of two bedrooms it is £550 pcm (and I bet most would not want to live over a shop on a main road). Council Tax would be between £63.47 pcm (Single Person occupancy -Band A) to £112.84 pcm for a Band C property. Water and Sewerage Charges £31.39 to 43.02 pcm. Energy £67 to £117 pcm. Transport £91 pcm (this is on the bus!). By this stage it should be easy to see that there is not much left for the other classifications made by ONS (Office of National Statistics - Food and Non-Alcoholic Drinks, Recreation and Culture, Miscellaneous Goods and Services, Household Goods and Services, Clothing and Footwear, Communication, Alcohol and Tobacco, Education and Health. Try telling a person in that position that it is just as difficult  for the FTSE Chief Executive on £800k pa before bonus!! Its the market I hear the neo liberal Neanderthals say. Well if it is then it is certainly dysfunctional!!
And if you think this is a rant then I would ask you to read Janet Daley in the Sunday Telegraph sometime and reflect at the lack of evidence and facts compared to this blog!!
Very few actually believe that codswallop that we are all in this together and here are some facts and evidence to show how that was never the case!!
References;
Unfair to Middling, TUC/Touchstone 2009
Eurostat.eu
Joseph Rowntree Foundation
HMRC
ONS
Salford City Council
United Utilities
TFGM
Zoopla
Moneysupermarket.com