I have always thought that John Redwood was better than he is generally presented by the liberal media. He has seemed - to me - more sensible than the hard core of boneheaded right-wingers who have made the prime ministerial careers of John Major and Theresa May unnecessarily difficult. There was, of course, the extreme embarrassment of him being filmed [as Secretary of State for Wales] trying to move his lower jaw in time to the Welsh National Anthem: and failing utterly. But in general I saw him as a 'trier' who was honest and not lacking in intelligence.
Then I saw a bit of his performance in the House of Commons yesterday: oh dear!
The issue was Brexit. His face was distorted with extreme, vitriolic anger. He was fed up, he declared, with the people who do this country down. The remainers and the soft Brexiteers - from his perspective - belittle this great country. Of course we can stand alone in the world, and triumph economically [with the implication that this task is trivial compared to the glorious achievement of solitary Britain in 1940-42].
It was painful and tragic to see him reduced to such a stupid and irrational argument. In descending to this lack of serious content his speech was about the best argument against his side of the issue that I have yet encountered.
The hard Brexiteers ignore the realities of the economic situation in the world. WTO Rules do not offer a safe basis on which the UK can instantly build a pattern of close trade deals with countries outside the European Economic Area, as has so often been stressed in this blog. Tariffs are not the key issue: regulations and quid-pro-quo deals that get round WTO standards dominate in world trade agreements, and the UK does not have the intellectual resources of trained manpower that would be needed to get even tentative interim deals in place by March 2019; or, indeed, by December 2021.
By declining to vote in the Commons yesterday, on the motion to publish the dossiers on 52 sectors of the economy and the potential impact on them of leaving the EEA, the Conservative Party again displayed that it has lost control of the House. It is almost certain that when these dossiers are released, they will provide a massive stock of ammunition for the remainers and will seriously undermine the sanguine daydreams of the hard Brexiteers.
The resignation on the same day of the highly-regarded Defence Secretary, on grounds that most men [and many women] of his age and origin would think to be spectacularly trivial, indicates to me that Sir Michael Fallon welcomed an excuse to get out from under the bonfire that is being built in the Tory party.
Redwood is - in political terms - dead wood, tinder dry; ready to support a conflagration that could end the two centuries of Conservatism as the dominant political organisation in the United Kingdom. The arch-Brexiteers would [apparently] force the collapse of the May government if their diabolical mission to undermine the economy is defeated. An election before Christmas has become a strong possibility; thought not yet probable.
Corbyn has always regarded the EU as a capitalist club: so he has been against it, even though Labour under his leadership notionally supported the remainers in the 2016 referendum: where millions of old-Labour voters went the other way. I doubt if the Labour leader has a clear view of what the European Economic Area is: and it is problematic whether Keir Starmer can bring him to a sensible stance on that matter. This is the one factor that could loose a December [or February] election for Labour. Politics have suddenly become much more interesting: and more frightening!
Showing posts with label Major. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Major. Show all posts
Thursday, 2 November 2017
Saturday, 30 June 2012
Banking Shock?
It is astonishing that anyone could be surprised by the latest major scandal to be published about the bankers. Of course they manipulated the London Market Offered Rate of interest: LIBOR. Of course they sold completely inappropriate derivatives to small businesses. They have run the financial system on the basis of blatant veniality for the last few decades.
The Rating Agencies are paid by the firms whose stock they rate: and by 2010 they had completely blown away their wholly spurious reputation of earlier years, when the uselessness of their ratings of billions of dollarsworth of badly-cobbled 'securities' and other instruments was made clear. It is incredible that five years on from the crunch of 2007 they remain recognised [by regulators, actuaries and accountants] as holders of the magic means by which stocks, shares and gambling slips issued by other firms are regarded as possessing 'value' in financial markets.
This suspension of disbelief in respect of the Agencies' ratings of company stocks helps to explain how the banks have continued to get away with a similar - and even more obviously corruptible - standard and measure of 'value' in the banking sector. Nobody has had any excuse for believing that any valid standard of competence or integrity has been attached to the daily announcement of libor [and of other median rates of interest] in the London Market. These figures, which are used as numeraires in millions of transactions worldwide every day, are based on data that are submitted by employees of the regulated UK banks. Since the nineteen eighties these same institutions have been deeply embroiled in the business of the London Market on their own account, as well as in the role of agents for other investors.
After two years of investigation by the regulatory authorities, during which the libor has been produced on the accepted basis, it has been admitted publicly that Barclays:
First, both in the good times pre-2007 and during the consequential crunch, massaged the data that they submitted for inclusion in the libor computation to support "the sneaking arts of underling tradesmen". The supposed data that the bank submitted were adjusted to support the day-to-day convenience of their trading counterparties and their chums. They supported their own market positions by influencing the rates that were authoritative in the Market.
Subsequently, after the extent of the crunch had begun to become clear, Barclays continued wantonly to mis-state the data better to facilitate their traders taking up and winding-down borrowings.
There is no reason to believe that the other banks that contributed data were significantly immune to the temptation to use the libor methodology to their advantage. More confessions will be made; and trivial fines [without criminal charges against offenders] are expected to be imposed on the other banks. Thus the whole of the UK's regulated home-based banking business have massively more undermined than had already been done by the crunch itself.
In the same week, just past, the RBS.group remained unable to rectify a disastrous, inept and incompetent 'upgrade' to its retail software that kept millions of customers from effecting transactions. This was reputationally at least as bad among less sophisticated customers as was the damage to 'wholesale' banking in the credit crunch that they could not understand. Then it was announced that thousands of firms had been invited to buy betting slips that had cost them heavily when interest rates had fallen: some of the 'invitations' had been presented as conditions that must be accepted by the client firm as a term for being granted some other facility by the bank. Many firms were ruined and many more suffered serious difficulty in finding the cash that was necessary to keep going through the slump.
The pathetic politicians have mouthed what their puerile advisers have recommended they should say in response to the multilayered revelations. They have demanded - or promised to establish - 'inquiries' informed by 'independent' 'experts' selected from the usual gang of lawyers and quangocrats who have drawn fees from the system that has promoted the decline of the once-robust economy..
Ordinary white British folk already know all too well what happened. Since 1980 successive governments of both parties have grovelled to accommodate the demands of the most pushy segments of the finance sector of the economy, because they were declaring expanding turnover and creating jobs and paying taxes that partially made up for the politicians' systematic destruction of the 'real economy'. They never were and never will be capable of self-regulation in any particular. They never were and never will be capable of making objective statements about the 'value' of anything that they conjure into existence. The delusion that the empowerment of market participants will endow them with responsibility towards society or to the body politic was most powerfully asserted by Margaret Thatcher and her sycophants; and was maintained by Major, Blair and Brown. David Cameron has neither the intellectual capacity nor the will to understand the consequences of this ruinous litany; and sneering Osborne has every interest in letting Cameron founder, in the hope that he will become the leader of a dying Tory Party.
It is certain that within the current political structure the government will not respond adequately or in good time to the next phases of the crisis that the political class has fostered; that the bankers will continue on their exploitative progress; and that the economy will continue to decline. Nobody can seriously claim to be surprised by any of it!
The Rating Agencies are paid by the firms whose stock they rate: and by 2010 they had completely blown away their wholly spurious reputation of earlier years, when the uselessness of their ratings of billions of dollarsworth of badly-cobbled 'securities' and other instruments was made clear. It is incredible that five years on from the crunch of 2007 they remain recognised [by regulators, actuaries and accountants] as holders of the magic means by which stocks, shares and gambling slips issued by other firms are regarded as possessing 'value' in financial markets.
This suspension of disbelief in respect of the Agencies' ratings of company stocks helps to explain how the banks have continued to get away with a similar - and even more obviously corruptible - standard and measure of 'value' in the banking sector. Nobody has had any excuse for believing that any valid standard of competence or integrity has been attached to the daily announcement of libor [and of other median rates of interest] in the London Market. These figures, which are used as numeraires in millions of transactions worldwide every day, are based on data that are submitted by employees of the regulated UK banks. Since the nineteen eighties these same institutions have been deeply embroiled in the business of the London Market on their own account, as well as in the role of agents for other investors.
After two years of investigation by the regulatory authorities, during which the libor has been produced on the accepted basis, it has been admitted publicly that Barclays:
First, both in the good times pre-2007 and during the consequential crunch, massaged the data that they submitted for inclusion in the libor computation to support "the sneaking arts of underling tradesmen". The supposed data that the bank submitted were adjusted to support the day-to-day convenience of their trading counterparties and their chums. They supported their own market positions by influencing the rates that were authoritative in the Market.
Subsequently, after the extent of the crunch had begun to become clear, Barclays continued wantonly to mis-state the data better to facilitate their traders taking up and winding-down borrowings.
There is no reason to believe that the other banks that contributed data were significantly immune to the temptation to use the libor methodology to their advantage. More confessions will be made; and trivial fines [without criminal charges against offenders] are expected to be imposed on the other banks. Thus the whole of the UK's regulated home-based banking business have massively more undermined than had already been done by the crunch itself.
In the same week, just past, the RBS.group remained unable to rectify a disastrous, inept and incompetent 'upgrade' to its retail software that kept millions of customers from effecting transactions. This was reputationally at least as bad among less sophisticated customers as was the damage to 'wholesale' banking in the credit crunch that they could not understand. Then it was announced that thousands of firms had been invited to buy betting slips that had cost them heavily when interest rates had fallen: some of the 'invitations' had been presented as conditions that must be accepted by the client firm as a term for being granted some other facility by the bank. Many firms were ruined and many more suffered serious difficulty in finding the cash that was necessary to keep going through the slump.
The pathetic politicians have mouthed what their puerile advisers have recommended they should say in response to the multilayered revelations. They have demanded - or promised to establish - 'inquiries' informed by 'independent' 'experts' selected from the usual gang of lawyers and quangocrats who have drawn fees from the system that has promoted the decline of the once-robust economy..
Ordinary white British folk already know all too well what happened. Since 1980 successive governments of both parties have grovelled to accommodate the demands of the most pushy segments of the finance sector of the economy, because they were declaring expanding turnover and creating jobs and paying taxes that partially made up for the politicians' systematic destruction of the 'real economy'. They never were and never will be capable of self-regulation in any particular. They never were and never will be capable of making objective statements about the 'value' of anything that they conjure into existence. The delusion that the empowerment of market participants will endow them with responsibility towards society or to the body politic was most powerfully asserted by Margaret Thatcher and her sycophants; and was maintained by Major, Blair and Brown. David Cameron has neither the intellectual capacity nor the will to understand the consequences of this ruinous litany; and sneering Osborne has every interest in letting Cameron founder, in the hope that he will become the leader of a dying Tory Party.
It is certain that within the current political structure the government will not respond adequately or in good time to the next phases of the crisis that the political class has fostered; that the bankers will continue on their exploitative progress; and that the economy will continue to decline. Nobody can seriously claim to be surprised by any of it!
Monday, 3 October 2011
Cameron's constitutionality
In quashing the members of his Party Conference who want to challenge Britain's status in the European Union David Cameron is bang in line with his predecessors.
Prime Minsters and their Cabinets have their massive power because they are the active members of Her Majesty's Privy Council. After each election the Queen is advised whom to ask to be Prime Minister: that Privy Councillor then invites members and candidate members of the Council to come to Cabinet meetings, and all the other Councillors stand aside. Some Councillors in 'loyal opposition' parties speak against individual proposals to change, or even to keep, policies that they enacted when in government; but the underlying reality is the commitment of all Privy Councillors to the continuity of Her Majesty's Government.
Cameron is resisting a challenge to that continuity.
This position is reinforced by the fact that the United Kingdom's immersion is Europe has been made by a succession of Conservative Prime Ministers:
Treaty of Rome - Heath;
change from Economic Community to European Union - Thatcher;
Maastricht - Major.
No Labour Prime Minister has such explicit responsibility [or culpability]. The EU is essentially a Tory gift to the British people, and to turn away from it would be a denial of the past that it would be extremely hard for any Conservative Leader to risk.
As to the democratic wish of the people: when has that really mattered?
Prime Minsters and their Cabinets have their massive power because they are the active members of Her Majesty's Privy Council. After each election the Queen is advised whom to ask to be Prime Minister: that Privy Councillor then invites members and candidate members of the Council to come to Cabinet meetings, and all the other Councillors stand aside. Some Councillors in 'loyal opposition' parties speak against individual proposals to change, or even to keep, policies that they enacted when in government; but the underlying reality is the commitment of all Privy Councillors to the continuity of Her Majesty's Government.
Cameron is resisting a challenge to that continuity.
This position is reinforced by the fact that the United Kingdom's immersion is Europe has been made by a succession of Conservative Prime Ministers:
Treaty of Rome - Heath;
change from Economic Community to European Union - Thatcher;
Maastricht - Major.
No Labour Prime Minister has such explicit responsibility [or culpability]. The EU is essentially a Tory gift to the British people, and to turn away from it would be a denial of the past that it would be extremely hard for any Conservative Leader to risk.
As to the democratic wish of the people: when has that really mattered?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)