Monday, 29 June 2009

Bankrupt, Bewildered but not Bothered.

Last week we waited with baited breath for Brown to put the thumbscrews on Hester of RBS for awarding himself a £10 million bonus if he lifts its share value on the stock exchange to 70p.

Not too aspirational a target when you consider the market's awash with funds looking for a profitable home and, as time has proved, the Banks can underwrite their risks at the taxpayers expense.

While the silence from the Government or its regulatory and treasury minions was deafening if not defining, it could be construed that the 70p share price is the price when the government sells our shares and allows RBS unhindered access to the club for free capitalists. All well, if not particularly good, in as much as while selling at 70p might show a profit against the £37 billion thrown in to the share pot it still leaves the £300bn the government has guaranteed under the asset protection scheme to fester its toxic way through all the systems except that of RBS. I'll bet that's a relief to Mr Hester - or is it possible he's got a scheme up his sleeve to get another bonus for handling the toxic trash RBS created in the first place?

Complicated business this world of high finance. Very confusing as to its values in moral, social or even the material terms it claims as its benchmark - the pursuit of profit created within a game of virtual reality.

It's this virtual reality that the UK plc has locked itself into. For governments it's the perfect product. It doesn't need huge development costs or massive filthy imports of raw materials. Research has almost instant access to investors, producers and consumers. Resource, production and marketing is global on a scale of 24 x 7 x 365. Its stock and storage requirements are minuscule and its distribution handled by the press of a keypad. For the 21st century its carbon footprint is almost as virtual as its product and, in spite of its players not having to deal with the daily buggeration factors of people producing a real product, they're paid mega-bucks for their commitment to the game and give employment to the experts in tax avoidance and the gurus of vanity products.

Yet the Telegraph tells us the cost to every family in the UK in 'real terms' for the virtual games played by these bird brained vultures and their sycophantical political followers is in the region of £203,350.00 per household. So somewhere between the stratosphere of high finance and the reality of earth this virtual world is supposed to develop substance. The Telegraph in its wisdom has even allocated costs to the various elements.
a)£144,000. to the virtual meltdown.
b) £5,600 To the Private Finance Initiative.
c) £1,000 To Network Rail?
d) £2,750 To Nuclear Decommissioning
e) £50,000 To Civil Servants Pensions.

Perhaps every household should send a 'virtual' cheque to the exchequer? However I've a feeling they would prefer us to accept a real mortgage payable for generations and that leaves a couple of questions I would like answered.

Why is it that any 'investment' by the government of our money for whatever purpose in private enterprise is so easily shed and at so little cost to the private enterprise.

And while I can understand capitalism's delight at its costs being underwritten from the public purse, why should it exclude that purse from it's equity or dividends or be removed from its moral responsibilities of and to society?

As it is now, the lack of moral fibre in Browns government to rein in and regulate the financial predators is akin to them handing responsibility for the NHS and the Social Services to the Barons of the Drug Cartels.

Not only do we have the imbeciles running the asylum, they can now prescribe their own drugs and decide their own remuneration.

Monday, 15 June 2009

For whom does Browns contrition toll.

Last Monday we were told of Browns pleas to his parliamentary cabal of how he would be more open, more considerate in his strengths, more aware of his weaknesses, more of a democrat than a despot in his dealings with them and, if only they stayed with him, he would lead them through the sloughs of well deserved despond into the promised booty of income unearned and negative governance by negligence.

Mr Brown was contrite, as only a politician can be. He swore on everything he holds dear he would change, provided he could hold on to everything he does hold dear. His cabal sheathed their cardboard swords and agreed. Which effectively meant Brown could hold on to all he holds dear, namely his power base, and nothing will change.

A situation well exemplified by the announcement that the long awaited and much delayed, by reason of obfuscation, inquiry into the Governments commitment to and handling of the Iraq war will be subject to Westminster's umpireship.

It would seem Brown is once again hellbent in proving he's the master of the most cost for least useable return dictum of dictatorship.

To quote Howard Zinn,"In circumstances such as these civil disobedience is not our problem, it's our civil obedience." Shame on you Mr Brown - but I'm forgetting; as a Westminster politician you are immune to shame, which means by definition you are incapable of contrition. Sad really but we will just have to see if a 10% poll rating is an incompetent Quislings tipping point.

Wednesday, 10 June 2009

There's a Time for Everything Under Brown.

I mean you've got to hand it to them, Labour couldn't create a coup out of chaos.

But there again why should our champions of democracy commit kazeekama when they can tuck another couple of hundred Ks under their belts by attending (at their leisurely discretion of course) to our democratic representation for another twelve months.

Meanwhile, our benevolent dictator, ever conscious of his paternalistic duty and shrugging of the heavy mantle of utter rejection behind the mask of denial has decided he, his cabal of jobsworths and the magnates of Labours hegemony are the best cure for the ills they've forced upon us. Call me cynical, but that seems too much like the mugged enquiring if his mugger has got enough cash to get safely home.

And this is from a man who has vanquished the cycles of boom and bust into a permanency of bust; who has tackled the challenge of the gap between the rich and poor by adding to the ranks of the poor and widening the gap; who's concept of probity is to remove the responsibility of corporates to provide a pension to their employees. In fact to remove any responsibility from corporates (provided they're large enough) towards their fundamental duties of contributing to the societies they use and exploit. The man who has denounced spin and adopted flap, while turning a blind eye to the flipping of the golden flats and the evasion of tax on the profit gained by investments paid for by the taxpayer. But, most damning of all, this man who has achieved nothing but failures during his term as Prime Minister- and some would add exchequer- now wants to add the reform of our democratic process to his portfolio?

I mean. to use Rumfelds dictum, this must be one of the known knowns as a recipe for disaster and a time for Brown to forget.

Tuesday, 2 June 2009

One Ball Too Many

On Thursday of this week we're told we have to do our civic duty and vote for the MEPs of our choice. Except it's not our choice; at least not as far as the main domestic parties are concerned, merely a list of names of candidates they have chosen. Names that for the most part have been dragged from the anonymity bucket of party activists. Seems to me that's more akin to an act of blind faith than a legitimate democratic process.

Which leads me to question what exactly we're voting for; and, is there even a shadow of democracy in the whole European charade when the Council of Ministers and the Commissioners are appointed by the elites of the political inner temples of the member States?

In the UK alone we have developed a growth industry out of politics. We already have more layers of governance than an archaeologists could imagine in their wettest dreams. From parish, town, city and county we go on to the major leagues of devolved, commons and the Lords before bringing in the battery producers of Europe; all of whom seem incapable of creating anything with any real effect other than to lighten our wallets.

Why is it not possible for constituency MPs to represent us in Europe. Perhaps selected by their parties and offered alongside the smaller or dissident candidates. Who knows we might get some work out of them; or would that be one ball too many in the juggling act of keeping legislation tight, regulation light and their expenses at there height irrespective of the blight they inflict on democracy.

So what exactly are we voting for? Is it an undemocratic executive with no responsiblity or accountability or even the sham of a pretendy democracy, becuase that's how it seems to me.