Poweromics

Irony and Hypocrisy: Corrupt GP's saying the NHS 'in peril' if they are NOT given the money!

2012-02-01T01:26:00.000-08:00

With key Royal Colleges and healthcare representatives expressing concern, and in most cases, outright opposition to the proposed NHS reforms, Andrew Lansley and David Cameron are under increasing pressure.

No-one voted for these NHS reforms and Cameron stated at the last election that he was committed to putting a stop to top-down reforms! David Cameron also said that the NHS would be safe in his hands and that any reforms would need the support of the healthcare professionals, yet despite all these fine words he is still ploughing on despite their outright opposition!

Hypocrisy indeed!

And what is Lansley doing? ... well he clearly decided to call upon a few GP 'friends' to write to the Telegraph to say they back the reforms, with typically threatening rhetoric ... "The NHS will be 'in peril' if the Government's controversial health reforms are prevented from going ahead".

However the letter wasn't signed by any GP, but 56 GP's specifically setting up new commissioning groups who, under the bill, will effectively replace primary care trusts (PCTs) and be handed the almost entire NHS Budget £80bn to manage (and personally profit from)!

The cold reality is most GP's are actually not at the fore-front of healthcare, with many out of date in terms of knowledge, and acting more like money orientated businessmen than healthcare professionals, already pocketing 6 figure+ salaries ... and these 56 particular GP's are looking to take over virtually the entire NHS budget so they can get massive kick-backs, bungs and bonuses (e.g. from rationing healthcare, steering away from optimal clinical decisions and receiving share options/dividends) and in doing so, become Government made multi-millionaires at the expense of patients and taxpayers.

Last November the BMA moved to a position of total opposition to the Bill, and in the New Year the Royal College of Nurses and the Royal College of Midwives followed suit. The Royal College of GPs is itself is deeply sceptical, although it's not publicly in total opposition yet (due to representations/lobbying from immoral/corrupt GP's like the ones who signed this letter), even though 90%+ are apparently in opposition (due to clear conflicts of interests between 'cashing in' and 'care').

Dr Clare Gerada, chair of the RCGPs, said: "GPs must understand their role in commissioning and we support the principle of greater clinician involvement. But many of our members feel that this could have been done in a less disruptive way by placing GPs on the boards of existing PCTs."

The Government, when it 'paused' to 'listen' to concerns, did not pause in its quest to abolish PCT's and the process of bribing corrupt GP's to ration and privatise healthcare. It therefore no surprise, given the stench of self-interest and personal gain, that these people are providing the only voice backing the reforms.

Most healthcare professionals, royal colleges and professional bodies know exactly what the Government and these corrupt GP's are up to ... but are finding it difficult to say so publicly. When will one or more of these bodies finally spill the beans and make it completely clear to everyone what is actually going on ... as they certainly have a professional and moral obligation to do so, as ignorance is unfortunately not bliss, and any apathy on their part will almost certainly kill ... literally!

The reality is that the NHS is indeed 'in peril', but only if we give these people the money, not if we don't!

Global Cooling here we come ... due to the Sun, Water Cycle and Oceans

2012-02-01T01:22:00.000-08:00

The supposed ‘consensus’ on man-made global warming is facing an inconvenient challenge after the release of new temperature data showing the planet has not warmed for the past 15 years.

The figures suggest that we could even be heading for a mini ice age to rival the 70-year temperature drop that saw frost fairs held on the Thames in the 17th Century.

Based on readings from more than 30,000 measuring stations, the data was issued last week without fanfare by the Met Office and the University of East Anglia Climatic Research Unit. It confirms that the rising trend in world temperatures ended in 1997!

Meanwhile, leading climate scientists yesterday added that after emitting unusually high levels of energy throughout the 20th Century, the sun is now heading towards a ‘grand minimum’ in its output, threatening cold summers, bitter winters and a shortening of the season available for growing food.

Solar output goes through 11-year cycles, with high numbers of sunspots seen at their peak. We are now at what should be the peak of what scientists call ‘Cycle 24’ – which is why last week’s solar storm resulted in sightings of the aurora borealis further south than usual. But sunspot numbers are running at less than half those seen during cycle peaks in the 20th Century.

Analysis by experts at NASA and the University of Arizona – derived from magnetic-field measurements 120,000 miles beneath the sun’s surface – suggest that Cycle 25, whose peak is due in 2022, will be a great deal weaker still.

According to a paper issued last week by the Met Office, there is a 92 per cent chance that both Cycle 25 and those taking place in the following decades will be as weak as, or weaker than, the ‘Dalton minimum’ of 1790 to 1830. In this period, named after the meteorologist John Dalton, average temperatures in parts of Europe fell by 2C.

However, it is also possible that the new solar energy slump could be as deep as the ‘Maunder minimum’ (after astronomer Edward Maunder), between 1645 and 1715 in the coldest part of the ‘Little Ice Age’ when, as well as the Thames frost fairs, the canals of Holland froze solid.

Yet, in its paper, the Met Office claimed that the consequences now would be negligible – because the impact of the sun on climate is far less than man-made carbon dioxide (what, really ... the effects of CO2 surpass those of the sun, the actual heat source itself ... get real!) Although the sun’s output is likely to decrease until 2100, ‘This would only cause a reduction in global temperatures of 0.08C.’ Peter Stott, one of the authors, said: ‘Our findings suggest a reduction of solar activity to levels not seen in hundreds of years would be insufficient to offset the dominant influence of greenhouse gases.’

These findings are fiercely disputed by other solar experts. ‘World temperatures may end up a lot cooler than now for 50 years or more,’ said Henrik Svensmark, director of the Center for Sun-Climate Research at Denmark’s National Space Institute. ‘It will take a long battle to convince some climate scientists that the sun is important (ignoring the sun, the fundamental heat source driving everything, says it all really!) It may well be that the sun is going to demonstrate this on its own, without the need for their help.’

He pointed out that, in claiming the effect of the solar minimum would be small, the Met Office was relying on the same computer models that are being undermined by the current pause in global-warming.

CO2 levels have continued to rise without interruption and, in 2007, the Met Office claimed that global warming was about to ‘come roaring back’. It said that between 2004 and 2014 there would be an overall increase of 0.3C. In 2009, it predicted that at least three of the years 2009 to 2014 would break the previous temperature record set in 1998.

So far there is no sign of any of this happening. But yesterday a Met Office spokesman insisted its models were still valid. ‘The ten-year projection remains groundbreaking science (do they mean fiction?). The period for the original projection is not over yet,’ he said.

Dr Nicola Scafetta, of Duke University in North Carolina, is the author of several papers that argue the Met Office climate models show there should have been ‘steady warming from 2000 until now’. ‘If temperatures continue to stay flat or start to cool again, the divergence between the models and recorded data will eventually become so great that the whole scientific community will question the current theories,’ he said (indeed).

He believes that as the Met Office model attaches much greater significance to CO2 than to the sun, it was bound to conclude that there would not be cooling. ‘The real issue is whether the model itself is accurate,’ Dr Scafetta said. Meanwhile, one of America’s most eminent climate experts, Professor Judith Curry of the Georgia Institute of Technology, said she found the Met Office’s confident prediction of a ‘negligible’ impact difficult to understand (and that goes for me too!)

‘The responsible thing to do would be to accept the fact that the models may have severe shortcomings when it comes to the influence of the sun,’ said Professor Curry. As for the warming pause, she said that many scientists ‘are not surprised’.

She argued it is becoming evident that factors other than CO2 play an important role in rising or falling warmth, such as the 60-year water temperature cycles in the Pacific and Atlantic oceans.

‘They have insufficiently been appreciated in terms of global climate,’ said Prof Curry. When both oceans were cold in the past, such as from 1940 to 1970, the climate cooled. The Pacific cycle ‘flipped’ back from warm to cold mode in 2008 and the Atlantic is also thought likely to flip in the next few years.

Pal Brekke, senior adviser at the Norwegian Space Centre, said some scientists found the importance of water cycles difficult to accept, because doing so means admitting that the oceans – not CO2 – caused much of the global warming between 1970 and 1997.

The same goes for the impact of the sun – which was highly active for much of the 20th Century. ‘Nature is about to carry out a very interesting experiment,’ he said. ‘Ten or 15 years from now, we will be able to determine much better whether the warming of the late 20th Century really was caused by man-made CO2, or by natural variability.’ (indeed!)

Meanwhile, since the end of last year, world temperatures have fallen by more than half a degree, as the cold ‘La Nina’ effect has re-emerged in the South Pacific.

‘We’re now well into the second decade of the pause,’ said Benny Peiser, director of the Global Warming Policy Foundation. ‘If we don’t see convincing evidence of global warming by 2015, it will start to become clear whether the models are bunk. And, if they are, the implications for some scientists could be very serious.’

... Indeed so, and all the money these corrupt climate 'academics', politicians, con-artists and hypocrites (e.g. Al Gore, Chris Huhne, Ed Miliband) have already pilfered from people's pockets with their lies and deceit should be forcibly recovered, with the individuals involved in the racket brought to book and locked up for economic genocide and for being the real danger to mankind!

(nb hopefully one of the them, Chris Huhne, will be locked up shortly anyway, for perverting the course of justice).

Moral capitalism - where the purpose of banks is to support industry, not gamble

2012-01-01T06:28:00.001-08:00

An interesting article from the Guardian ...

"To convert the business man into the profiteer is to strike a blow at capitalism … The business man is only tolerable so long as his gains can be held to bear some relation to what, roughly and in some sense, his activities have contributed to society."

Can we create a morally acceptable form of capitalism; and if so, what would it look like? Faced with a decade of hardship apparently caused by the greed of a few, people are asking whether bankers are no more than profiteers, and whether inequality has risen too far. Even the former US treasury secretary, Lawrence Summers, and former head of the CBI Richard Lambert, have said we need to do better on inequality.

The quote above, however, comes not from anyone today but from John Maynard Keynes, in 1923, during the postwar turmoil in the financial markets. There was hyperinflation in Germany, a collapse of the Mark, chaos on the foreign exchanges as prices had gone up and down, and violent fluctuations in employment.

Like many of those who turned to communism and fascism, Keynes had strong moral objections to capitalism – but he consistently repudiated socialism, communism, and fascism, for he believed that capitalism was essential both to create high standards of living and to guarantee personal liberty. In effect he sought a capitalist revolution.

For Keynes, the sustainability of capitalism was not only a technical question but a moral question – because if capitalism is to survive, people have to believe it is a system worth supporting. His priority was to eliminate unemployment. It was also a moral priority to design an international monetary system that would reduce the chances of capitalism descending into chaos again. And to do that, economists had to grapple with difficult technical details, but their motivation was a vision of a better capitalism.

We face the same challenge today – to develop a morally acceptable form of capitalism. As Keynes feared might happen, much business is now seen as no more than profiteering. Many people object to the bonus culture of the banking system because they don't believe those bonuses are earned. We have also learned that inequality not only undermines the legitimacy of capitalism (that was Keynes's concern) but it has corrosive effects: unequal societies are unhappier, less healthy, and have more crime.

We cannot wind the clock back, but we should not be afraid to look to the past for ideas. It is hard to make a clear distinction between profiteering and legitimate business activity and yet, throughout history, there have always been limits on what can be bought and sold in the market. Perhaps the boundaries between legal and illegal activities need to be reconsidered; perhaps derivatives need to be better regulated – or simply banned from banks' portfolios. Creating a more stable banking system so that banks do not need bailouts would help maintain high employment and tackle inequality.

We can also look abroad. A decade ago it was common to look to Scandinavia or Germany and to compare their institutions with ours. Now "Anglo-Saxon" capitalism has lost its shine, perhaps we should reconsider whether we can learn, for instance, from Germany, with its system of industrial democracy and a banking system geared up to support industry, or try to find out why the gap between rich and poor is much narrower in most of Europe.

One reason for the problems we face today is that we have stopped seeing taxes as an essential institution in a capitalist economy for if taxes could be raised, especially on those who can most afford to pay them, public services would not have to be cut. We should see taxes as an integral part of a moral capitalist economy, providing health, education and social care outside the market. People should not be afraid to join Warren Buffett in saying the rich should pay more tax. The "Tobin tax" on financial transactions should not be seen as a way to raise funds for the euro, but as a tax that could help stabilise the financial system and as a "Robin Hood" tax.

Such changes need to be analysed carefully, for technical details do matter, but they need to be on the agenda: if we are to save capitalism, as we must if we want prosperity and liberty, we must face up to its moral failings. Unless we do this, we will be unable to imagine a better future, let alone work out how to achieve it.

... and IMHO with the collective actions of UK bankers summarised as legalized counterfeiting, robbery, extortion and gambling ... coupled with their continual threats and heavy handed lobbying/bribery of politicians, it is going to take a sea-change for any morality to enter Britain's banks ... German leaders do not stand for it (and look at how they are prospering, despite having to prop up the rest of Europe!) so why do we? Well I guess the answer to this revolves around the fact that these legalized 'muggers' can only mug 'mugs'!

Right Wing Liberty: 'Freedom for the pike is death for the minnows'

2012-01-01T06:28:00.000-08:00

Extracts from a great article recently published by George Monbiot that's well worth a read ... if you value your freedom:

'Freedom: who could object? Yet this word is now used to justify a thousand forms of exploitation. Throughout the rightwing press and blogosphere, among thinktanks and governments, the word excuses every assault on the lives of the poor, every form of inequality and intrusion to which the 1% subject us. How did libertarianism, once a noble impulse, become synonymous with injustice?

In the name of freedom – freedom from regulation – the banks were permitted to wreck the economy. In the name of freedom, taxes for the super-rich are cut. In the name of freedom, companies lobby to drop the minimum wage and raise working hours. In the same cause, US insurers lobby Congress to thwart effective public healthcare; the government rips up our planning laws; big business trashes the biosphere. This is the freedom of the powerful to exploit the weak, the rich to exploit the poor.

Rightwing libertarianism recognises few legitimate constraints on the power to act, regardless of the impact on the lives of others. In the UK it is forcefully promoted by groups like the TaxPayers' Alliance, the Adam Smith Institute, the Institute of Economic Affairs, and Policy Exchange. Their concept of freedom looks to me like nothing but a justification for greed.

So why have we been been so slow to challenge this concept of liberty? I believe that one of the reasons is as follows. The great political conflict of our age – between neocons and the millionaires and corporations they support on one side, and social justice campaigners and environmentalists on the other – has been mischaracterised as a clash between negative and positive freedoms. These freedoms were most clearly defined by Isaiah Berlin in his essay of 1958, Two Concepts of Liberty. It is a work of beauty: reading it is like listening to a gloriously crafted piece of music. I will try not to mangle it too badly.

Put briefly and crudely, negative freedom is the freedom to be or to act without interference from other people. Positive freedom is freedom from inhibition: it's the power gained by transcending social or psychological constraints. Berlin explained how positive freedom had been abused by tyrannies, particularly by the Soviet Union. It portrayed its brutal governance as the empowerment of the people, who could achieve a higher freedom by subordinating themselves to a collective single will.

Rightwing libertarians claim that greens and social justice campaigners are closet communists trying to resurrect Soviet conceptions of positive freedom. In reality, the battle mostly consists of a clash between negative freedoms.

As Berlin noted: "No man's activity is so completely private as never to obstruct the lives of others in any way. 'Freedom for the pike is death for the minnows'." So, he argued, some people's freedom must sometimes be curtailed "to secure the freedom of others". In other words, your freedom to swing your fist ends where my nose begins. The negative freedom not to have our noses punched is the freedom that green and social justice campaigns, exemplified by the Occupy movement, exist to defend.

Berlin also shows that freedom can intrude on other values, such as justice, equality or human happiness. "If the liberty of myself or my class or nation depends on the misery of a number of other human beings, the system which promotes this is unjust and immoral." It follows that the state should impose legal restraints on freedoms that interfere with other people's freedoms – or on freedoms which conflict with justice and humanity.

These conflicts of negative freedom were summarised in one of the greatest poems of the 19th century, which could be seen as the founding document of British environmentalism. In The Fallen Elm, John Clare describes the felling of the tree he loved, presumably by his landlord, that grew beside his home. "Self-interest saw thee stand in freedom's ways / So thy old shadow must a tyrant be. / Thou'st heard the knave, abusing those in power, / Bawl freedom loud and then oppress the free."

The landlord was exercising his freedom to cut the tree down. In doing so, he was intruding on Clare's freedom to delight in the tree, whose existence enhanced his life. The landlord justifies this destruction by characterising the tree as an impediment to freedom – his freedom, which he conflates with the general liberty of humankind. Without the involvement of the state (which today might take the form of a tree preservation order) the powerful man could trample the pleasures of the powerless man. Clare then compares the felling of the tree with further intrusions on his liberty. "Such was thy ruin, music-making elm; / The right of freedom was to injure thine: / As thou wert served, so would they overwhelm / In freedom's name the little that is mine."

But rightwing libertarians do not recognise this conflict. They speak, like Clare's landlord, as if the same freedom affects everybody in the same way. They assert their freedom to pollute, exploit, even – among the gun nuts – to kill, as if these were fundamental human rights. They characterise any attempt to restrain them as tyranny. They refuse to see that there is a clash between the freedom of the pike and the freedom of the minnow ...

... Modern libertarianism is the disguise adopted by those who wish to exploit without restraint. It pretends that only the state intrudes on our liberties. It ignores the role of banks, corporations and the rich in making us less free. It denies the need for the state to curb them in order to protect the freedoms of weaker people. This bastardised, one-eyed philosophy is a con trick, whose promoters attempt to wrongfoot justice by pitching it against liberty. By this means they have turned "freedom" into an instrument of oppression'.

Blaming rogue traders ... so the bankers can continue to counterfeit and gamble

2012-01-01T06:27:00.000-08:00

Vince Cable recently referred to the City as a "source of systemic instability, unfettered greed and industrial-scale tax dodging" but appeared to blame the problem on a small number of rogue institutions. The use of a minority scapegoat to cover up wide spread illegality, immorality and abuse of power is a particularly favoured tactic in the financial sector (alongside threatening behaviour).

The figure of the rogue is evoked to apportion blame and ask for forgiveness. It's always just one or two rogue individuals, states or institutions that emerge as the unique source of blame for an entire system's failure. The rogue is blamed but ultimately the system that produces it is forgiven.

When the figure of the rogue is evoked, it stops us asking more challenging questions. What if the rogue institutions in the City that caused the financial crisis of 2008 and now avoid paying their taxes are simply the best, and most profitable, example of everything that is wrong with capitalism today; merely the product of a system that rewards greed and exploitation?

Let's hope that the rogue institutions of the City are not allowed to fulfil the promise of their epithet – for their transgressions to be forgiven and ignored. These rogues are products of greater forces at work. Let's stop treating them like inexplicable anomalies and start to understand the conditions that make them and their misdemeanours possible. Then, perhaps, we can do away with the figure of the mischievous but forgivable City rogue altogether.

Accounting loopholes used by bankers to 'inflate profits' (and their bonuses)!

2011-12-14T04:20:00.000-08:00

Following on from my recent post about the locusts, leeches and vultures in our society (i.e. financial services companies and lawyers) a report has been published today by the Adam Smith Institute showing how banks (the locusts) use outdated/flawed accounting rules to fictitiously boost profits in order to maximise their bonuses.

The report highlights how technically insolvent banks are using IRFS accounting rule annomalies to report massive profits by using expectations of future values when calculating/reporting profits ... to make it look as if they are not insolvent and to make it look as if the bankers are making lots of money (in order to boost their own individual bonuses). Yet many of these assets, contrary to increasing in value can easily, and in fact do (as we have seen!), become worthless.

The report highlights how the 'financial engineering' going on in banks is no more than a legalized scam/ponzi scheme (e.g. Credit Default Swaps) and how it's effectively fraud (which compliments/augments the legalized counterfeiting they also undertake)! It also highlights how politicians and regulators are doing nothing to tackle the anomalies in the accounting procedures to stop them from doing this in the future.

The report also exposes how the ratings systems not only allow, but positively support, them making up and using 'fraudulent' financial vehicles to fictitiously drive up profits (by giving scam 'products' triple AAA ratings), whilst making it very difficult for hard-working small/medium enterprises to get a loan (due to not giving them triple AAA ratings and/or no rating at all). This makes it easy, and much more lucrative, for banks to 'manufacture profits' from 'financial products' (or 'vehicles'), rather than generate profit by lending money to an enterprise working hard to manufacture 'real products' (e.g. real 'vehicles')!

So what are the Government doing? ... Well rather than tackling the problem at its source (e.g. by starting to address the flawed rules/systems that allow such scams to go on), they have instead said they are going to set a little bit of taxpayers money aside (i.e. your money!) for small/medium businesses (whipppeee)! ... and at the same time they are preparing for the next bank bailout - which will occur when the value of all these fictitious financially engineered products actually prove to be worthless (and when the current commodity boom they are currently pushing also goes bust). With 'ring-fencing' effectively put into the long grass by politicians*, nothing of any substance will have been implemented to protect the taxpayer before the next collapse (currently being driven by the bankers).

The end result ... mega-rich bankers/speculators ... bankrupt nations/taxpayers.

The process ... legalized fraud, robbery and counterfeiting ... endorsed by corrupt politicians and law makers (n.b. lobby groups such the CBI also lobby heavily on behalf of banks, claiming they are the 'Voice of Business', when due to the vast amounts of money given to them by the banks, they are really the 'Voice of Banks').

In China such people would be tried for economic sabotage ... and, if guilty, hanged ...

So when will people in the Western World realize what is happening and start to demand action ... a couple more years perhaps? ... when the next bailout is required?

Well, whatever the timescale, the bankers are clearly looking to make hay while the sun shines (i.e. taking a shedload of your future wages - i.e. the taxes they will take from you in the future to pay for previous/future bailouts) ... whilst the politicians/lawyers try to put up barriers, blow up bridges, and get their lifeboats ready ... so when people do finally realise what's actually been going on they won't be able to reach them ... or their corrupt bank friends!

* David Cameron has put plans for any ring-fencing at least 5-10 years away, and he also put aside our national interests last week when trying to protect his banking friends in the City from any regulatory changes taking place in Europe.

I predict a riot ... or public disorder ... says ex Police Chief

2011-12-08T07:55:00.000-08:00

With budgets under increasing pressure, unemployment growing and Police morale also becoming an issue, Lord Stevens, recently launched an independent commission into the future of Policing, saying "my own belief is - and it's a very personal one - that (over) the next 18 months, two to three years, one of the main issues will be public order, or rather public disorder".

"I don't think anyone would disagree with that in terms of the challenges facing policing. We'll be looking at that in some detail," he said.

"My gut feeling and beyond is that it's going to be a very difficult 18 months, two years, but I hope to God I'm wrong."

He predicted "disquiet on the streets" and said he was really concerned about unemployment - particularly youth unemployment and "a sense of increasing crime" and said "The police have to be absolutely match fit to deal with these issues."

Indeed - I don't think anyone needs a crystal ball to see this one coming ... and I think the timeframes are probably about right too.

Locusts, Leeches and Vultures

2011-12-08T07:26:00.000-08:00

Financial Services companies are locusts in society, and if anyone is still in any doubt about the level of greed/immorality of bankers then they need look no further than the latest news about HSBC mis-selling bonds which systematically stripped vulnerable old people of their hard-earned money/nest eggs ...

At the same time, ambulance chasing lawyers are like vultures, chasing any opportunity to profit from someone else's misery and pushing people to make fictitious claims (e.g. whiplash injuries). It is almost ironic that lawyers are trying to feed off the locusts now too, following the widespread mis-selling of insurance (PPI) by banks ...

Oh what a corrupt, rotten, immoral world we live ... and whilst we are on this topic let's not forget the immoral behaviour of Insurance companies, the leeches, who have recently been exposed for profiting heavily from passing on the details of accident victims to ambulance chasing lawyers (and in the process pushing up car insurance premiums).

These leeches promise the world to get their hands on your money, but when there is a risk of paying any money back they'll use any trick in the book to wriggle out of it. For instance it has recently been revealed how the vast majority of insurance companies aren't checking prior accidents/claims before providing car insurance (despite it costing pennies and being really easy to do) because they prefer to take a huge chunk of people's money knowing that they'll never have to pay any of it back (nb they carry out these cheap/simple checks as soon as you try to claim, and then use this to relinquish themselves of any liability).

The current state of the economy is due to successive inept and corrupt Governments choosing to believe financial services (e.g. casino banking, counterfeiting banking and insurance companies) to be the key to the future prosperity in the UK ... when in reality, just as locusts, these groups systematically destroy value, not add value, to an economy!

Unless these people are stopped and made to pay for their actions, they will bleed the country dry and the vultures will feed off any remains. The bankers and insurance executives will then try to push themselves onto other emerging economies to feed/leech off them (but places like China have already seen right through them - and anyone found trying to destroy their economy like the bankers have here would be tried for economic sabotage and hanged).

An increasingly unequal country where people are definitely not 'all in this together'

2011-12-08T07:00:00.000-08:00

Income inequality has risen faster in Britain than in any other rich nation since the mid-1970s, according to a report by the OECD.

The think-tank says the gap has come about due to the rise of a financial services concentrating wealth into the hands of a tiny minority and has warned about the rise of the top 1% in rich societies and the falling share of income going to poorer people.

This trend is especially pronounced in Britain*, where the dramatic rise in inequality has been fuelled by the creation of a super-rich class. The share of the top 1% of income earners increased from 7.1% in 1970 to 14.3% in 2005.

Just prior to the global recession, the OECD says the very top of British society – the 0.1% of highest earners – accounted for a remarkable 5% of total pre-tax income, a level of wealth hoarding not seen since the second world war.

At the same time as accumulating great wealth, the rich have seen tax rates fall. The top marginal income tax rate dropped from 60% in the 1980s to 40% in the 2000s, before its recent increase to 50% (which the current Tory leadership is trying hard to scrap).

Cameron is also going to the EU Summit with the sole aim of 'protecting' his 'friends' in the City ... the people who helped to bankrupt our nation, who are still not lending to small business, and who are now busy speculating on commodities/currencies and trying to bankrupt the nations (and taxpayers) who bailed them out!

* The OECD report re-enforces previous reports of FTSE100 executives receiving 50% pay rises (on already multi-million pay packages), whilst the vast majority of hard-working people are facing pay freezes/cuts and/or redundancy.

Business, Finance and Politics are 'Out of Touch' with People ...

2011-11-06T01:59:00.000-07:00

Politicians are starting to 'feel the heat' and some are starting to see where the 'wind is blowing' ... Ed Miliband's article from the Observer newspaper today ... published below in full:

"This is a frightening time for Britain: unemployment at record levels, inflation going up, living standards squeezed; a European crisis, lurching from Athens to Brussels to Cannes, adding to the sense that the economy is on the brink; a government sitting on the sidelines, unwilling or unable to help.

That is the backdrop for the protests at St Paul's and hundreds of similar demonstrations in cities across the world. Some are swift to dismiss them for putting forward what is a long list of diverse and often impractical proposals.

Certainly, few people struggling to makes ends meet and worried about what the future holds for their children will have either the time or the inclination to camp outside a cathedral. And many people will not agree with the demands or like the methods of the protesters. But they still present a challenge: to the church and to business – and also to politics. The challenge is that they reflect a crisis of concern for millions of people about the biggest issue of our time: the gap between their values and the way our country is run.

The role of politicians is not to protest, but to find answers. I am determined that mainstream politics, and the Labour party in particular, speaks to that crisis and rises to the challenge.

Many of those who earn the most, exercise great power, enjoy enormous privilege – in the City and elsewhere – do so with values that are out of kilter with almost everyone else. The warning lights on the dashboard are flashing. And only the most reckless will ignore or, still worse, dismiss the danger signals.

The problem – as I said in my Labour conference speech at the end of September – is a system of irresponsible, predatory capitalism based on the short term, rather than productive, responsible behaviour which benefits business and most people in the long term.

Just think about the last couple of weeks: the energy companies making record profits per customer, and the top directors getting a 50% pay rise while everyone else feels their living standards squeezed. Banks not heeding the lessons of the financial crisis: still dishing out big bonuses and still not lending to the entrepreneurs our economy needs.

You do not have to be in a tent to feel angry. People feel let down by aspects of business, finance and politics which seem in touch with the richest 1% – but badly out of touch with the reality facing the other 99%. They wonder if things can be different — and whether politics can make a difference.

There is much about what David Cameron and George Osborne are doing with which I disagree. But our problems go deeper than any one government. "Take what you can." "In it for yourself." "The fast buck." Most people never embraced these values but we were told they would help us, and Britain, to succeed. But too many thought they could do whatever they wanted, and pay themselves whatever they wanted. And some became so powerful or so big, they believed no one would dare challenge them.

When people at the top show such irresponsibility, it should be not be a surprise to find it elsewhere in society too. We must make big changes in the way our country works. And that is why the choices we make now to address people's immediate worries should also pave the way to a better economy, society and country in the long term.

We want the deficit to be reduced. A Labour government would be making measured spending cuts and tax rises. But any family would find it impossible to pay off a mortgage or a credit card bill if no one in that household is earning an income. That is the immediate problem in our economy. With unemployment at a 17-year high, there are not enough people in work to help pay down the deficit. Nowhere is this more true than for young people.

It makes no sense to allow one in five of them to languish out of work. I was talking with members of what could be a "lost generation" in London the other day who, after being out of work for nearly a year, told me there was no hope for them. We must give them hope, not offer more of the same.

The Tories are discussing how to make it easier for firms to fire people. We are developing policies so they can hire people. We would start by creating thousands of new jobs paid for by a tax on the bank bonuses. It is about rewarding the right values, not the wrong values, in our economy. Young people wanting to go to university fear being burdened down with debts of £50,000 when they leave. It makes no sense and it does not reward aspiration and hard work. So, instead of proceeding with tax cuts for the banks as the government plans to do, we should use that money to cut the maximum tuition fee from £9,000 to £6,000.

And we should apply the right values in the rest of our economy. Our welfare system needs change to reflect not just the compassion of our country, but also the values of hard work, contribution and getting something out when you put something in.

Rather than wringing our hands about electricity bills, we would break up the rigged market of the energy cartel so that new competitors can drive prices down. And let us tell the top CEOs that, if they are unwilling to justify their rewards to an employee on the committee that decides salary packages, they will not get it. These choices are all affordable and can all be made now to help get Britain working again for most people. But they also pave the way for a better economy and a more responsible capitalism in future.

Business as usual is not an option. In every generation, there comes a moment when the existing way of doing things is challenged. It happened in 1945. It happened in 1979 and again in 1997. This is another of those moments because the deeper issues raised by the current crisis are too important to be left shivering on the steps of St Paul's. We cannot leave it to the protesters to lead this debate.

But we can only win this debate with a movement which stretches beyond politics. That is why in the months and years ahead Labour is determined to construct and to lead a coalition which includes business and civil society to make the case for a responsible economy, fairer society and a more just world".

Morals vs Money ... the 'battle' has begun ...

2011-11-06T01:48:00.000-07:00

The Archbishop of Canterbury and the Church have stepped further into the frame and are preparing for 'battle' ...

Following the Occupy Movement setting up their protest camp outside St Paul's, more senior figures, led by the Archbishop of Canterbury, have stepped up their attack on the City, speaking of a financial sector which sets a moral tone for a society which had become "scandalously unfair", and drawing attention to the human cost of financial injustice, as well as the need to reset the debate about financial institutions firmly within the context of a bigger story about what human life is for.

They include:

• Dr John Sentamu, The Archbishop of York, has launched an attack on executive pay, saying that FTSE-100 company chief executives were doing a disservice to society with their remuneration, saying "It is hard to imagine a more powerful way of telling someone that they are of little value than to pay them one-third of 1% of your salary ... and among the ill effects of very large income differences between rich and poor are that they weaken community life and make societies less cohesive."

• Ken Costa, a former bank chairman (of investment bank Lazard International) and the Church’s newly appointed leader of an initiative/commission to build links with the City and build bridges between the anti-capitalist protesters and the City (appointed by Dr Richard Chartres, the Bishop of London, following his 'u-turn'). Mr Costa has already said: "It will look at how the market has managed to slip its moral moorings, and explore pragmatic ways of uniting the financial and the ethical."

• Dr Giles Fraser, the cleric who quit as canon chancellor of St Paul’s, said there was “financial injustice” that had to be addressed. He resigned from the Chapter of St Paul's as clerics fell out over how to deal with the Occupy London protesters camped outside, and has added that the Church should highlight the human cost of financial injustice, but warned its leaders against "proposing specific answer to complex economic problems."

"Rather, it's the calling of the Church to draw attention to the human cost of financial injustice, and to reset the debate about our financial institutions firmly within the context of a bigger story about what human life is for," he said.

The cathedral executed a u-turn after the intervention of Dr Williams, who sided with the anti-capitalist protesters camped outside the cathedral, and as a result the Corporation of London has now had to suspend its legal action.

Dr Williams, has also called for specific action, calling for the introduction of a financial transaction tax (sometimes referred to as a 'Robin Hood' tax), and started to intervene after becoming increasingly dismayed at the stance taken by Richard Chartres, the Bishop of London, who backed the legal action to have them removed.

There is still quiet concern at the Cathedral that the stance now being taken by senior clerics and the Church will put off City donors ... who significantly fund St Paul's Cathedral ... which goes a long way to explaining the initial desire of some (such as the Bishop of London initially) to start legal action to remove the protestors ...

The 'battle' has indeed begun ... Morals vs Money ... and it's not going to be easy ... as even some in the church have clearly initially struggled with this!

From a historical perspective, by not allowing protestors to protest in 'The City' or outside the Stock Exchange, and with the Occupy Movement subsequently choosing to camp out at St Paul's Cathedral instead (which is next to the Stock Exchange), little could they have known that this would spark into action one of largest movements in the world, and see the Church step into the frame to back their cause ... a ground-swell within the Church is clearly developing and gaining a renewed sense of vigor ...

PS Ed Miliband has finally stepped forward again today by writing an article ...

Global Capitalism vs Christianity - has a 'battle' begun?

2011-10-28T02:28:00.000-07:00

By demanding that the worst excesses of global capitalism be reined in, the Holy See echoed the message of protesters encamped outside St Paul's Cathedral in London, the indignados of Spain and the Occupy Wall Street movement in the US.

In a forthright statement, the Vatican's Pontifical Council for Justice and Peace called for an end to rampant speculation, the redistribution of wealth, greater ethics and the establishment of a "central world bank" to which national banks would have to cede power.

Such an authority would have "universal jurisdiction" over governments' economic strategies. Existing financial situations such as the World Bank and International Monetary Fund were outdated and no longer able to deal with the scale of the global financial crisis, which had exposed "selfishness, greed and the hoarding of goods on a grand scale".

The global financial system was riddled with injustice and failure to address that would lead to "growing hostility and even violence", which would undermine democracy. Wealthy countries should not be allowed to wield "excessive power" over poorer nations, the Vatican said. Cardinal Peter Turkson, the head of the pontifical council, said banks needed to question whether they were "serving the interests of humanity" in the way they operated.

The proposal calls for a new tax on international financial transactions, but the battle for the future of humanity (based upon robust values/ethics) has only just begun and is becoming more vocal from Christians ... and is joining forces with others (e.g. the Occupy Movement).

However the 'battle' is not going to be easy or without 'casualties', as some church leaders are clearly not happy about this ... for instance the Revd Canon Giles Fraser resigned yesterday after having sided with anti-capitalist protestors camped outside St Paul's cathedral. The cathedral was losing £20k a day in lost takings (e.g. it charges £20 just for entry) and was coming under increasing pressure from local authorities ... clearly some in their senior ranks felt this financial loss (and unwanted attention) was just too much to bear ... hypocrisy indeed!

In a sign of the deeper splits within the clergy, a report that Canon Fraser had been due to publish, which was damning of the lack of ethics amongst bankers, had been shelved by the cathedral amid concerns that it would escalate the row by appearing to add weight to the protesters' cause.

Double dip ... here we come!

2011-10-28T01:48:00.000-07:00

Further evidence today that we are heading for a double-dip recession ...

1. Two of the nine Bank of England Monetary Policy Committee (MPC) members have effectively now admitted it ... with one now saying there is a 50-50 chance the economy will contract in the final three months of the year. They are trying to 'rescue us', or should I say 'cover the recession up', with a further £75bn of quantitative easing (printing money) ... and they hinted a further extension of this is likely in the coming months. The problem with this approach is that the money simply ends up in banks (who caused the problem in the first place) for them to speculate with (rather than lend out to businesses) and it also pushes up prices/inflation (nb the idea that the stock market is 'rallying' is a big con ... it simply follows the effective devaluation of the pound).

2. Sentiment among the British public has dwindled to recession levels as fears mount over the outlook for the economy and household finances. GfK NOP's consumer confidence index fell to -32 in October from -30 in September. It has only breached that level on two occasions since the survey began in 1974 - March 1990, and June 2008. At both points the UK was heading into recession.

But don't worry ... the Chancellor and the Government now have something else to 'pin the blame on' ... not themselves ... or any of their policies/inaction ... but the crisis in Europe* ... how convenient ... and timely!

* After all the rhetoric from Cameron and the Government about listening to the voice of the people (and giving them a referendum on Europe), it's interesting that they imposed a 'three line whip' to force MP's to vote against a proposal aimed at giving ordinary people an opportunity to have their say over Europe ... whilst they continue to use taxpayers money to prop Europe up! Hypocrisy indeed.

Proof we are definitely not 'all in this together' - Directors pay jumps 49% in one year!

2011-10-28T01:18:00.000-07:00

At a time when high inflation, high unemployment, and low wage growth are weighing down on UK household budgets a report has been published demonstrating how we are definitely NOT "all in this together".

With pay freezes being imposed on the vast majority, the 'cosy club' of people sitting in boardrooms, and who also sit on renumeration committees, are rewarding themselves handsomely ...

Today an IDS report confirmed that FTSE 100 directors have seen their pay increase by a staggering 49% in just one year ... and this is a very large percentage increase on an already very large salary!

The problem is that the vast majority of people sitting in boardrooms and on renumeration committees are also directors themselves ... so these people are effectively live in an 'incestuous world' where they all vote to push up boardroom pay and give each other a big pay rise ... however good/bad their company is doing!

Average FTSE 100 director pay is now up to £2.7m, including fixed pay, benefits, bonuses, value of long-term incentive plans and gains made on the exercise of any share options cashed in during the year.

Britain's economy may be struggling to return to pre-recession levels of output, but the same cannot be said of FTSE 100 directors' remuneration," said Steve Tatton, editor of the IDS report.

IDS said: "At a time when employees are experiencing real wage cuts and risk losing their livelihoods, it may be difficult for FTSE 100 companies to justify the significant increase in earnings awarded to their directors ... the pay gap between the boardroom and the shop floor does not yet show any signs of closing."

Which is a complete understatement ... the gap is actually widening rapidly and at an increasing rate ... not just in percentage terms ... but in terms of actual value too (pay rise of £0 compared to a pay rise of over £1m)!

The Unite union has called executive pay "obscene" and has called for shareholders to be given more power to hold directors accountable. The union's general secretary, Len McCluskey said: "The Government should strongly consider giving shareholders greater legal powers to question and curb these excessive remuneration packages".

""Institutional shareholders need to exercise much greater scrutiny and control of directors' pay and bonuses ... it's obscene and it shows that the City has learnt nothing during the financial troubles of the last four years."

Brendan Barber, the TUC's general secretary, said: "Top directors have used tough business conditions to impose real wage cuts, which have hit people's living standards and the wider economy, but have shown no such restraint with their own pay ... Reform should start with employee representation on remuneration committees, which would give directors a much-needed sense of reality."

Deborah Hargreaves, chair of the High Pay Commission, also said "We have got a closed shop here and someone needs to break it open."

In a recent speech Ed Miliband also said this must be challenged ... let's see if he speaks up about this again and does something about it now ... or let's see if he chooses to quietly walk away from the challenge after finishing yet another attention grabbing and crowd-pleasing speech!

It's a shame so many people are either ignorant or apathetic ... and also have such short term memories!

GP's 'rationing' healthcare already ... and they're not even being 'bonused' on it yet!

2011-09-10T00:04:00.000-07:00

The number of patients being referred by their GP to see a hospital specialist has dropped by almost 5% over the past year, prompting fresh concern that access to care is being rationed as a direct result of the pressure on NHS finances.

GPs in England referred about 3.6 million patients for a first hospital consultation between April and July, according to data from the Department of Health (DoH). That was 4.7% fewer than the same period in 2010 – 3.8 million referrals.

The number of patients being seen by consultants after a GP's referral also fell during the same period, from 3.1 million last year to 2.9 million – a drop of 5.2%. The two sets of figures do not match because many patients remain on waiting lists.

The British Medical Association (BMA), the doctors' trade association, said that reductions in patients' access to healthcare were happening more often.

"The NHS is under a lot of pressure to do less, for example through referral management initiatives, which seem to be on the increase. These may save money but for every lost referral there is a patient who is not getting diagnosed or treated, and a hospital that is more likely to encounter financial problems," said a BMA spokesman.

John Healey, the shadow health secretary, also warned that some patients may be missing out on drugs, surgery or other treatment because of the falling number of referrals.

"While it is important to reduce demand for hospital care, patients will want reassuring that they are not being denied necessary treatment," he said. "These figures show the huge pressure on hospital finances at a time when David Cameron is wasting millions of pounds reorganising the NHS bureaucracy."

The NHS in England is struggling as its budget increase this year is just 0.1% – after a decade of big annual rises – while it seeks to save £20bn by 2015. The efficiency drive was ordered by the NHS's chief executive, Sir David Nicholson, in 2009, intending to free resources for the growing number of patients, especially elderly people, with long-term conditions such as cancer, diabetes and obesity. Nicholson has told the NHS several times not to limit services in order to meet the target.

GP's are not being 'bonused' to 'ration' healthcare yet but make no mistake ... plans for GP commissioning has this at its heart ... e.g. the less spent on patient care the more their consortium will profit ... and the more the consortium profits the more the GP's will receive in dividends (i.e. cash straight into their bank accounts) ... to compliment the multimillion pound windfall they'll also receive when they decide to sell off their 'stake' in their consortium.

Conflict of interest? You bet! Government prepared to fix this fundamental flaw in the reforms plans? Absolutely not! The real reason for these reforms is cut the healthcare budget ... and 'rationing at source' (i.e. at the point where people might be diagnosed and/or referred) is the simplest and most effective way the Government see to do this ... but they know they'll have to 'bribe' the GP's to get them to do this!

Some GP's are clearly already 'signalling' their 'enthusiasm' and 'ability' to do this ... whilst others steadfastly refuse out of principle. What people fail to realise is that not only will they be rationing healthcare, these soon to be multi-millionaires will also be looting the NHS of the finance is desperately needs to spend on healthcare!

Hippocratic oath - or Hypocrasy ...?

When diagnosing patients in the future ... will patients believe and have trust in what their doctor says and recommends? ... or will that vital trust be broken ... with patients trusting them little more than politicians? **

Unsure ... well if you need more information in order to decide ... why don't you listen to what trustworthy and honorable GP's say ... and/or the latest news on GP's being caught charging the NHS for treating patients that don't exist ... or who died years ago!

** Age old saying:

Question: "When do you know a politician is lying?"

Answer: "When their lips are moving!"

"Weapons of mass destruction", "I pledge not to raise tuition fees", "I'll cut the deficit, not the NHS" ...

Irradicating the "Economics of Exploitation"

2011-09-02T02:37:00.000-07:00

A great blog from the Renegade Economist ... which makes the case for a new economics ...

"While unearned wealth is both a symptom and a driver of economic injustice, the objective of transformative social change is not to soak the rich, but to create an environment in which economic opportunities are more widely distributed among the population ...

The recent riots and looting in London and other English cities are symptomatic of deep economic dysfunction. The social fabric is straining under the weight of an economics unable to offer any possibility of a different, better future. The social contract is under greater pressure than at any time since the 1930s. But there is a crucial difference between the world then and the world today: a transformation in our collective moral aspirations that offers a spark of hope for the future, the kind of spark that in the dark days of the mid-20th century it took a world war, and the horrors of the holocaust, to ignite.

A just economy will not emerge from the tired debate between left and right, or endless arguments over whether free markets or state control of the economy deliver the best outcome. Justice requires that we transcend these stale and failed dialectics. Neither the contemporary vision of a free-market economy, nor a state-socialist or Keynes-inspired social democratic model can deliver a just economy; each is too riven by conflicts and compromises to get anywhere close.

Nothing short of fundamental reforms to the three pivotal institutions of the modern economy will do. Without substantial changes to the tax system; the financial system and the monetary system, a just economy will remain beyond reach.

Foundations of a New Social Contract

While a smaller, less expensive, state is perfectly achievable once everyone is permitted a viable stake in the economy, the state will still have an important function for which it will need to raise revenue through taxation. But it should tax the use of land and natural resources, things that are limited supply, rather than wages and profits. Taxing the output of economic activity discourages entrepreneurship and penalises hard work.

Financial markets must be reformed so that their sole purpose becomes the channelling of investment capital to the real, productive economy; activities that create the goods, services and experiences that people need to live decent lives, and the extras that promise the possibility of fulfilment and happiness.

Alongside these changes we need a new system of money creation; one that ensures stability in the money supply and that sufficient credit is available to fund every viable new business start up, or sustainable plan for expansion. Money should no longer be created as debt, as this places an unnecessary and counterproductive burden on both business and the economy as a whole.

Economic Renaissance for the Majority

These measures would curtail the minority enjoyment of unearned wealth and bring the benefits of a dynamic, opportunity-rich economy within reach of many more people. It’s perhaps not easy to imagine such a future economy, and it’s probably impossible to model the precise impact of these changes in terms that conventional economics demands, but such modelling is not necessary. These reforms would have to be implemented gradually so they can be fine-tuned as their impact becomes evident. And a great deal more research is required, especially into the impact that changes in each of these spheres will have on the other two: the mechanisms of the tax, financial and monetary systems are complex and interdependent.

If such changes are to be successfully implemented, they will have to be coordinated internationally. This may seem an impossible goal, but it’s not so very different in scale or complexity to the changes unleashed by the process of economic globalisation over the last thirty or so years; it’s just better motivated.

Over to You…

But none of this can happen without the commitment of a critical mass of people. Where that tipping point lies is impossible to know but it is out there. What we need now is the most successful marketing campaign in history. Central to that campaign should be the message that transformative change to economic structures and institutions is possible, and if such change were achieved, the life experience of the vast majority of human beings would be dramatically improved.

Next week, in the final article in this series, I shall look at the prospects for this campaign, and at the importance of established democratic structures in the process of revolutionary economic change"

"Nothing in the world... not all the armies... is as powerful as an idea whose time has come." Victor Hugo

... This is a great article. IMHO the current form of 'economics' is a mixture of Poweromics (the 'economics' of exploitation, self interest and greed) and little will change until Ignoromics reduces (as suggested in the last paragraph ... 'over to you').

For instance over the last few days the banks have made a conserted and co-ordinated effort (with the CBI - the "Voice of Banks" - not the "Voice of Business" - as they are most bankrolled by the Banks) to strike fear in the public and threaten the Government not to split retail banking away from investment banking (nb which is being brought in to stop taxpayers having to bailout reckless bankers again). Creating fear is a common tactic used by those in Power (remember the Iraq war and those 'weapons of mass destruction'?) ... and the banks are using the 'destruction of the economy' as their 'weapon of choice' (even though it is they that destroyed the economy in the first place)!

The Liberal Democrats say the want to press ahead with reform, but David Cameron and George Osborne are taking the opportunity (i.e. comments about the threats to the economy) to say they would like to 'park the reforms in the long grass' until the economy is stronger (anything to do with the 'backhanders', lobbying and their ultra-rich friends perhaps?) Just have a guess where these guys are likely to go after they leave Politics ... and I am sure it will be, just like Tony Blair before them, to lucrative jobs in the City!

The problem with the current economics is that it is not just the financial system that is corrupt, but it is all the other essential pillars of society too ... such as Government, the Media (remember Murdoch and the News of the World) and the Judiciary.

The move away from taxing jobs/profit to taxing unearned income/wealth (e.g. land values, gambling, financial transactions etc) is IMHO a 'no brainer' ... as is taxing the extraction of limited natural resources ... and making illegal the electronic counterfeiting of money (which the legal system allows the banks to do every day - i.e. creating money out of thin air, loaning it out and charging interest on it!) as well as the reckless and deliberate destabilising activities of banks (e.g. shorting, and the creation of 'toxic products' such as credit default swaps).

Current economics is unfortunately proving itself to be more about the movement of money/resources to wherever Governments allow them to exploit/profit from people the most ... a form of 'economics' contrary to 'growth' and 'well-being' ... and more about the "Economics of Exploitation".

Tax the Rich more and the Poor less ... say the Rich in France

2011-08-26T02:46:00.000-07:00

Following on from similar comments by US Billionaire Warren Buffett, the rich people of France have called upon their Government to tax them more in order to turn the economy around ...

... in a letter, signed by some of France's most high-profile chief executives, said: "We, the presidents and leaders of industry, businessmen and women, bankers and wealthy citizens would like the richest people to pay a special contribution ... in a spirit of solidarity" and the French Government is acting accordingly (with an extra tax of 3% on income over 500,000 euros) ...

So why in Britain do we have George Osborne, Boris Johnson and the rest of the Conservative party trying to argue that to escape from our economic problems we need to tax the rich less (i.e. they want to get rid of the 50% tax rate for incomes over £150,000) and tax the poor more (whilst helping them a lot less) ?

Is it that they know 'better' ... or is it pure selfishness and greed on behalf of themselves (they are all millionaires) and their rich friends? IMHO this isn't a hard one to work out ... pretty obvious really ... however the problem is most people in the UK are either ignorant or apathetic about it ... so these corrupt 'spin-doctors' (who are trying to push the 'ultimate con' - namely 'trickle-down' economics) think they can get away with it!

The Conservatives try to tell us we "are all in this together" (whilst the truth is in fact the complete opposite) whilst the French don't just talk about, they stand-up to be counted, speak out about solidarity and what is needed to really turn things around, and act upon it!

The 'Four Horsemen' are coming ...

2011-08-17T00:14:00.000-07:00

The trailer of a forthcoming documentary by The Renegade Economist.

The Four Horsemen is an independent feature documentary which lifts the lid on how the world currently works ...

Those in power are "controlling the money ... and controlling the way we think" ... to make sure they "stay in power" ... and to make sure that "capital and power concentrate further" ...

"They're getting away with all kinds of legal thievery" and "people are beginning to get angry, but not nearly enough"

Directed By: Ross Ashcroft

Featuring: Joseph Stiglitz, Michael Hudson, Prof. Herman Daly, Gillian Tett, Noam Chomsky, Max Keiser, Dr. Ha-Joon Chang, Simon Johnson, Colonel Lawrence Wilkerson, John Perkins, Tarek Al Diwany, Camila Batmanghelidjh, James Turk, David Morgan, Hugo Salinas Price and more ...

Coming soon: Autumn 2011

Tax the Rich more and the Poor less ... says US Billionaire

2011-08-16T01:40:00.000-07:00

Warren Buffett has today called for the US to make him and his "mega-rich friends" pay more income tax. In an article for the New York Times newspaper, the billionaire investor and philanthropist said the rich should do more to help plug the deficits.

He called for a tax rise for those earning more than $1m (£600,000), and a higher rate for those on over $10m.

In a rebuttal of arguments made by Republicans, he said tax rises would not hurt investment or jobs in the US and he told the Government to "stop coddling the super-rich".

"Our leaders have asked for 'shared sacrifice'," he wrote. "But when they did the asking, they spared me."

Mr Buffett explained that, like many top earners, his income came entirely from investments rather than from employment, which are subject to lower taxes in the US. He said last year he paid an effective tax rate of 17.4%, less than the 33% to 41% paid by the employees in his office.

He dismissed arguments made by senior Republicans, including John Boehner, speaker of the House of Representatives, that taxing higher earners more would damage investment and job creation in the US.

"I have yet to see anyone... shy away from a sensible investment because of the tax rate on the potential gains," he said, adding "People invest to make money, and potential taxes have never scared them off".

He pointed out that the effective tax rate paid by the highest earners was much higher in the 1980s and 1990s than in the last decade, and yet job creation was much higher in the earlier decades.

His proposed tax rises would not affect 99.7% of taxpayers, he claimed, adding that a 2% payroll tax cut passed in December should stay in place to help the poor and middle classes.

Warren Buffett's message is clear ... tax the rich more and the poor less ... and tax investments more (an example of 'money from nothing') and cut the tax on jobs ... as recommended in my last post ... and Buffett's message is the complete opposite to, and pours total scorn upon, Boris Johnson's and George Osborne's demands to cut the top rate of tax too.

Their request is nothing to do with boosting the economy ... but everything do with lining their own pockets (they are both multi-millionaires) and the pockets of their ultra-rich friends ... at the expense of everyone else. Buffett's comments also show the hypocrisy of these people, especially when they also use a strap-line like we are 'all in this together' ....

Ignorance is unfortunately not bliss and, as we saw last week, is only going to create more trouble ...

Lack of Opportunity and Lack of Responsibility

2011-08-15T04:20:00.000-07:00

Riots flared up last week as thousands of people (mostly young people) took to the streets and looted shops.

Young people currently face a plethora of challenges, e.g. double the rate of unemployment, the stopping of Education Maintenance Allowances (EMA) and the tripling of tuition fees ... and on getting older they face a lifetime of debt slavery and paying of their mountain of debt (now estimated to be around £60k due to the tripling of tuition fees) and crippling house prices too (due to Government policy and corrupt bankers). The truth is they have been completely let down by Government and given little opportunity or hope ... partly because they were seen as an 'easy target' in the cuts (as most of them do not have a vote and those that do rarely vote anyway)!

Yet there is no excuse for young people doing this. Rather than protesting directly to those responsible for creating this mess (i.e. the self interest and greed of the politicians/bankers), they have also shown their own ignorance and greed ... by destroying their own communities and looting shops instead! This inexcusable ignorance, shown by a small minority, in effect condones the self interest and greed of those who actually created this mess (i.e. the politicians and bankers).

They did not loot Libraries/Waterstones for knowledge ... and they did not loot farmers fields because they could not afford to eat either ... instead they looted JJB, Carphone Warehouse and Dixons for trainers, blackberry's and flat screen TV's! ... All organised using social media ... and their expensive Blackberry's and iPhones! Greed and self interest has in effect bred yet more greed and self interest, destroying communities in the process.

A lack of responsibility, by Government, parents and the 'politically correct', has in effect led to a lack of accountability and responsibility in a growing number of young children, who uncorrected by their parents and the system, want to do nothing ... but expect everything (nb playing computer games doesn't count*)! Rather than an outward looking, helpful and hardworking society, Government over the last 20-30 years has overseen the creation of an inward looking, selfish and lazy society ... where 'value' is determined by "what you have", not "who you are" or "what you do" ...

"Greed is Good" and "Money for Nothing" have become mantras for many ... which is why rising house prices has become a national obsession (e.g. look at the number of house programmes on TV) ... and is why financial services, such as banking and insurance (who create money from nothing - they counterfeit it, charge interest on it, and gamble it) was seen as the future for Britain ... whilst manufacturing (i.e. people actually adding value and making things) was classed as too 'hard work', boring and irrelevant (nb look where Germany is now, having taken the opposite view ... despite having to prop up the Eurozone, and having already had to absorb the problems of East Germany and the collapse of the Berlin Wall too).

We need to heavily tax the creation of money from nothing (including gambling and counterfeiting by bankers) ... and provide tax incentives for creating jobs. We need an economics where "People taking responsibility for adding value and continuously improving the situation for others (e.g. customers, communities, overall environment), based upon fundamental values such as trust, honor, responsibility and respect".

And we need to turn around the accountability and responsibility of young people, parents and 'leaders' (including politicians). Young people should be held accountable for their actions, and parents for their children. Politicians need to also be held accountable for their failure to reward the values any civilized society needs to be founded upon ... namely Trust, Honor, Responsibility and Respect. They should also reward 'People taking responsibility for adding value and continuously improving the situation for others', and heavily tax/outlaw those things that do not or do the opposite (which includes most of the practices of banks, insurers and parasitic no-win-no fee lawyers).

The Government are desperately trying to deflect blame onto Gangs and are calling in an ex-New York Police Chief to sort it out ... but the failure is a mixture of ignorance, a lack of morality, responsibility and social justice (nb the gap between the rich and poor has spiraled in the last 20-30 years).

The current Government is deliberately dividing society, rather than bring it together, and trying to stop society turning its gaze on their immoral actions ... e.g. whilst all this is going on, George Osborne is looking to follow Boris Johnson and his call to cut the top rate of tax for the rich (which will make the gap between rich and poor even greater), whilst increasing taxes and cutting services for the young and poor!

They both claim this is needed to 'boost' the economy - what a joke! ... the rich simply use their money to accumulate more money (e.g. by buying up and then renting houses, excluding young people from home ownership)! If they really wanted to boost the economy they would invest in young people and the future and providing tax incentives for job creation, not tax cuts for the rich! He would also boost tax revenues by taxing areas that generate 'money for nothing' too (e.g. land values, housing speculation, investment banking and insurance).

Unfortunately ignorance is not bliss, and as seen last week, ignorance can result in actions that are totally misguided and counterproductive! Unrest will unfortunately continue to grow whilst power is unbalanced and self-interest and greed remain acceptable mantras in society** ... and for things to change for the better, looters need to be replaced by serious, responsible, and organized protesters, who are keen to see justice, trust, honor, responsibility and respect ... not just in society ... but from their 'leaders'.

* Many young people are today immersed in computer games, including 18 rated ones such as Grand Theft Auto, which involves them stealing, killing, rioting and looting! Such games must make it harder for them to distinguish between good and bad, right and wrong, fiction and reality ... when doing all the wrong things is 'rewarded'!

** Cameron's comments about holding people to account, and fixing the morality in society, are I'm afraid mostly smoke and mirrors and spin (from an ex PR spin doctor) ... because the courts are doing very little in terms of sentencing, and his chancellor has yet again shown they are continuing with their plans to raid the poor for the benefit of the rich. Just like the NHS, Cameron/Osborne will try to push ahead quickly ... before any subsequent review is completed (just like he did with GP commissioning)!

More arrests and resignations ... as 'leaders' continue to be exposed

2011-07-18T01:51:00.000-07:00

As the scandal continues to escalate, and 'terriers' such as Tom Watson and Chris Bryant gain the upper hand in exposing the truth and bringing those involved to justice, the 'leaders' in this murky 'underworld' are clearly starting to panic (as they are no longer in control).

Over the course of the weekend, Rebekah Brooks (CEO News International) resigned (despite Rupert Murdoch flying in to look after her) and has been arrested on charges of corruption and phone hacking.

Likewise, Sir Mark Stephenson, the top police officer in the country has now resigned because of the hiring of Neil Wallis (Andy Coulson's deputy editor at the News of the World) as a communications adviser to the Metropolitan Police at a time when phone hacking allegations were being reviewed. Following his arrival, the police downplayed claims of phone hacking and refused to reopen the case (e.g. despite the evidence they had clearly saying the opposite)! Wallis, like Andy Coulson himself, has now been arrested on suspicion of conspiring to intercept communications.

Some are speculating that the arrest of Rebekah Brooks this Sunday was deliberately brought forward to stop any further (and more damaging) revelations being made public (e.g. about the relationships/collusion between the media, police and politicians), as Brooks is due to face tough questions from a cross-party Committee of MP's on Tuesday.

This is not something that Cameron, the Murdoch's or the police officers likely to be implicated want to see, but the net is closing in on all of them.

James and Rupert Murdoch have been summoned to attend the Committee of MP's and their future roles in BSkyB and News Corporation are now also being questioned (by fellow directors and shareholders) ... and with Brooks no longer acting as a 'firebreak' they both look increasingly at risk!

More resignations are likely from the Metropolitan Police too (e.g. John Yates) and David Cameron also looks increasingly vulnerable too ... as he, unlike Sir Mark Stephenson, has steadfastly refused to take responsibility or apologise for his poor judgement in bringing Coulson into Number 10 (despite all the warnings he received).

Cameron is desperately trying to steer the scandal away from him and towards the issues associated with the media and police, to distract attention away from the relationship between himself and News International ... but the evidence is growing by the day. Cameron's diary shows he met News International executives on a regular basis (c.f. executives from all other media groups - including the BBC) and in his resignation speech the Metropolitan Police Commissioner alluded to the difficulties in raising issues with regard to News of the World with the Prime Minister when Andy Coulson was in the position he was!

Cameron has consistently failed to explain in detail the precise circumstances in which he took on Coulson, as well as any discussions held around the time of his subsequent resignation. Cameron, like the Murdoch's, has no 'firebreak' either and he has stated the decision to recruit Coulson was 'his and his alone' ... hence his position is starting to look increasingly vulnerable too.

Will Cameron survive ... IMHO it's too early to say at the moment ... but we do know this scandal is not going to go away and has got a long way to go ... and those who have abused their power/trust are struggling to keep a lid on it!

Yvette Cooper, the shadow home secretary, said: “It is striking that Sir Paul has taken responsibility and answered questions about the appointment of the deputy editor of the News of the World whereas the Prime Minister still refuses to recognise his misjudgment and answer questions on the appointment of the editor of the News of the World at the time of the initial phone hacking investigation. People will wonder at why different rules apply for the Prime Minister and the Met, especially when as Sir Paul said himself, unlike Andy Coulson, Neil Wallis had not been forced to resign from the News of the World.”

Politicians round on Murdoch ... and force him to drop his BSkyB bid

2011-07-13T09:18:00.000-07:00

Cameron clings on ... by announcing more details of the judicial inquiry being planned into the scandals involving the media and police ... and by deciding to support a 'cross-party' coalition debate (though did not himself attend!) ... responding to the scandals embroiling News Corporation and pressurising News Corporation to withdraw his bid for BSkyB - which Murdoch has now done!*

To save his own skin Cameron has had to jettison his ties to Murdoch and finally 'let Coulson go', saying ... 'if he lied to not only to himself, but select committees and judges, then he should be prosecuted'. Cameron will I hope that attention gradually moves away from the questioning of his judgement on hiring Coulson, but is probably quietly worried about what Coulson himself might say now (e.g. Coulson on being arrested commented he "has a lot he would like to say, but currently can't").

'People power', building up as a result of growing concern about the misuse of power and the growing influence of the internet (e.g. social networks), is starting to force politicians to listen, and forcing corporations to think carefully about any negative impact on their brands (which is why they were quick to withdraw their advertising from News of the World).

Cameron has reduced the proposed inquiries down to one, and some see this as a clever way of taking some of the 'heat' away from the regulation/ownership of the press and away from how politicians work together/conspire with the Media ... however a number of groups, including the 'Hacked-Off' campaign and the family of Milly Dowler, are putting pressure on the Government to ensure the inquiry is both wide-ranging and thorough (e.g. it covers the behaviour of Politicians and Government in relation to the media). After talking to all party leaders, they said that they are reassured that voice of the People is starting to be heard ... and that they will continue to challenge the actions of groups such as the Press, Police and Politicians.

Let's see ... this has a long way to go ...

* Is Rupert Murdoch trying to save News Corporation and/or his son James, currently Chairman of News International and Non-Executive Chairman of BSkyB ... as people are starting to ask if News Corporation is 'fit and proper' to own the existing 39% of BSkyB it currently owns too! ... and US senators are also starting to ask for enquiries into the practices of News Corporation in the US!

More self interest and greed ... from the Public this time!

2011-07-10T06:53:00.000-07:00

As the scandals surrounding the News of the World continue to grow, and the nation's anger at the lack of adherence to any moral/ethical standards and codes becomes visible to all, the nation may have just inadvertently shown Cameron et al that they might be able to 'get off the hook' ...

So how have they done this ... well by rushing out to buy 5 million copies of its final edition for a start!

Rather than boycotting the paper, their own personal self-interest and greed has stepped to the fore ... with printing presses having to work overtime to print double the normal number of newspapers ...

Greedy people are hoping to 'cash in on it' as it becomes a collectors item in the future ... and Cameron et al will be pleased to see this as it gives him a 'rock' to hide behind (i.e. everyone else is acting in their own self-interest)!

Murdoch will also take heart from this greed and the lack of a boycott ... and take comfort from the fact that the vast majority of advertisers have only sought to switch their advertising to one of his other papers.

If people really want to show their anger then they needed to boycott all News International Papers (e.g. Sun, The Times and Sunday Times) for good, and boycott the advertisers who fund his papers!

Unfortunately, in the circles of power, 'Money Talks' and it is only by the public boycotting them that the message will be listened to, and those currently in power (and misusing power) stopped from doing so.

This is where Cameron and Murdoch are watching closely now ... as unfortunately within the UK, whether in business or politics, it is still money that talks!

And to all those rushing out to buy the last edition of "News of the World" ... all moral, decent and honorable people should be saying ... "shame on you - as you have shown yourselves to be living in the same sewer as the people you look to condemn" and "by going out and buying it you are probably allowing the morally corrupt to 'get off the hook' and carry on doing it again"!

Cameron - representing the People ... or doing Murdoch's bidding?

2011-07-09T04:26:00.000-07:00

Despite coming out 'fighting' ... Cameron is struggling to shrug off his close ties/relationship with the scandals associated Coulson, the Murdoch Empire and phone hacking at the 'News of the World' ...

His decision, despite concerns/advice raised by many people, to employ Coulson at the heart of Government creates serious question marks around his personal judgement ... and it looks like it could be sufficient to see him fall (and he knows it) ...!

Coulson, the News of the World Editor during the scandals, was yesterday arrested by police ... and Cameron is being deliberately vague about detailed questions/checks he made prior to employing him ... and/or any specific concerns/advice he received from others. He is instead preferring to deflect questions away by saying "he had decided to give Coulson a 'second chance', that it was his decision, and his decision alone ... and that people will judge him on his decisions"!

Given his concern about the situation ... he is clearly sheltering others from the decision to employ Coulson, to avoid other colleagues also being brought into the fray (n.b. George Osborne has been implicated too) and to avoid the crisis engulfing the whole Government and his entire Party. Unlike Rebekah Brooks, he is clearly prepared to fall on his sword ... but is waiting to see how the whole scandal develops!

Well it does not look good for him at the moment ... as it becomes clear that Cameron, in a speech only 10 days ago, was clearly doing Murdoch's bidding! With Murdoch's ruthless desire to takeover BSkyB at risk of being blocked by Ofcom*, Cameron decided to go on the offensive with a public and unexpected attack on Ofcom ... making clear his desire to get rid of the quango (i.e. he threatened them)!

Cameron has been helping Murdoch in his takeover bid prior to doing this too. For instance Cameron took the opportunity to place a well-known ally/backer of Murdoch (Jeremy Hunt) in charge of deciding whether or not to refer Murdoch's proposed takeover to the Competition Commission (taking the decision away from the Business Secretary, who normally takes such decisions) ... and not surprisingly, after many 'discussions/ assurances' from Murdoch, Hunt said he was 'minded to pass the bid'!

However, given recent events it's clear that there is 'politically' no way that Cameron/Hunt will get away with this right now (or at least anytime soon), so they have decided to park it in the long grass (on the grounds of having to go through 100,000's submissions they have received about the takeover)!

* Ofcom can block the takeover if they believe News International is not a 'fit and proper' organisation* to own a UK broadcaster ... and with News International now accused of deleting millions of emails, rather than co-operating fully with the Police (as they have repeated stated in public), they clearly fail this 'test'.

** News International executives could also be facing charges of corruption in the US too, where such offences are dealt with extremely seriously (e.g. executives, whether they were knowing or not, can be completely stripped of all their assets). The Murdoch's are really panicking now ... hence Rupert Murdoch's decision to come over to the UK to try to 'take control' ... and to see who else they need to bribe/threaten!

People: Do politicians represent them, police protect them and the press inform them ...?

2011-07-08T04:14:00.000-07:00

This morning David Cameron has tried to come out fighting ... but 'boxed in' ... he has had to resort to using a little bit of honesty. Firstly he provided details on the two public inquiries being planned.

The first, led by a judge, will get to the bottom of the specific revelations and allegations seen ... e.g. the illegal and utterly unacceptable practices taking place (e.g. phone hacking and illegal payments to corrupt police officers) ... to find out what happened ... and how it was allowed to happen. This will include finding out why the first police investigation failed so abysmally ... what exactly was going on at the News of the World and what was going on at other newspapers, with this inquiry starting as soon as all police/criminal investigations are complete.

The second inquiry involves action associated with learning the wider lessons for the future of the press, conducted by a credible panel of figures drawn from a range of different backgrounds and who command the full support, respect and above all confidence of the public. They should be truly independent, without any motive but to seek the truth and clean up the press. In doing so they will look at the culture, the practices and the ethics of the British press, and in particular they should look at how our newspapers are regulated and make recommendations for the future (NB Cameron made clear self regulation and the Press Complaints Commission had failed).

He tried to limit the damage of his close personal relationships with Coulson and Brooks, but his final comments were the most damaging/telling of all ...

"But there is, as I said at the outset, a third question that this scandal asks of us, and it is not an easy one for me to answer. Because as we’re considering the devastating revelations of the past few days, it is no good just pointing the finger at this individual journalist, or that individual newspaper.

It’s no good, actually, just criticising the police. The truth is, we have all been in this together – the press, politicians and leaders of all parties – and yes, that includes me. We have not gripped this issue.

During the last government, a police investigation was undertaken, it was inadequate and not enough was done. There were reports from the Information Commissioner and they went unheeded. There were Select Committee reports on phone hacking and there was no follow-up. Throughout all this, all the warnings, all the concern, the government at the time did nothing. And frankly, neither did the Opposition.

To be fair, it is difficult for politicians to call for more regulation of the media, because if we do so, we’re accused of wanting to stifle a free press or even free speech. But the deeper truth is this: there is a less noble reason. Because party leaders were so keen to win the support of newspapers we turned a blind eye to the need to sort this issue, get on top of the bad practices, to change the way our newspapers are regulated.

It’s a bit like MPs’ expenses. The people in power knew things weren’t right. But they didn’t do enough quickly enough – until the full mess of the situation was revealed.

Now, when the scandal hits and the truth is plain for everyone to see there are two choices. You can down-play it and deny the problem is deep – or you can accept the seriousness of the situation and deal with it. I want to deal with it.

These inquiries give us a chance for a fresh start and I want us to take it. Look, it’s healthy that politicians and journalists speak to each other; know each other. Democracy is government by explanation and we need the media to explain what we’re trying to do. But this is a wake-up call.

Over the decades, on the watch of both Labour leaders and Conservative leaders, politicians and the press have spent time courting support, not confronting the problems.

Well: it’s on my watch that the music has stopped. And I’m saying, loud and clear – things have got to change. The relationship needs to be different in the future.

I’m not going to pretend that there’s some nirvana of two separate worlds, relating to each other on the basis of total transparency and ethical perfection. That's not real life.

But we can do a hell of a lot better than we’ve done so far. Because as this scandal shows, while it’s vital that a free press can tell truth to power it is equally important that those in power can tell truth to the press.

For people watching this scandal unfold, there is something disturbing about what they see. Just think of who they put their trust in. The police to protect them. The politicians to represent them. The press to inform them.

All of them have let them down.

So when the inquiries are over, the questions have been asked, and the truth found out I want a police that has proved itself beyond reproach, a political system that people feel is on their side and a press that is yes, free and rigorous; that investigates and entertains; that holds those in power to account and occasionally – yes, even regularly – drives them mad.

But, in the end, is a free press that is also clean and trustworthy. That is what people want. That is what I want. And I will not rest until we get it".

Indeed so ... but it's the collusion, corruption, and the blatant abuse/misuse of Power that is now clear for all to see ... not just with the Politicians, Media and Police ... but with the banks, corporate leaders, landowners and the whole judiciary too. e.g. if you started photocopying bank notes (and lending it out at interest) you'd be locked up ... yet this is what banks legally do everyday!

Such blatant abuses of Power are not going to go away ... not until more people wake up and smell the coffee ... and do something about it that is!

Aristotle famously said:

"Democracy is when the indigent, and not the men of property, are the rulers"

"In a democracy the poor will have more power than the rich, because there are more of them, and the will of the majority is supreme"

"The trade of the petty usurer is hated with most reason: it makes a profit from currency itself, instead of making it from the process which currency was meant to serve. Their common characteristic is obviously their sordid avarice"

"No notice is taken of a little evil, but when it increases it strikes the eye"

"News of the World" chopped ... but will this 'sacrificial lamb' succeed?

2011-07-07T10:39:00.000-07:00

Well that was quick ... James Murdoch, son of Rupert Murdoch and chairman of News International, has just announced that the last publication of the "News of the World" will take place on Sunday.

With pressure mounting on the Murdoch empire (e.g. key advertisers pulling out in their droves) and Government, they have clearly concluded that all the 'spin in the world' will not get them out of this hole ... hence the news that the "News of the World" is to become a 'sacrificial lamb'.

IMHO this decision is nothing whatsoever to do with ensuring a level of ethical standards in the media ... but a cold/hard business decision to try to stop the BSkyB bid from collapsing (which is something Murdoch really wants)!

Hence Murdoch's decision should not change anything ... and those in Power (Government, Media, Police), and abusing their power, need to be flushed out and locked up (wherever and whenever corruption, collusion and criminality can be proven).

The investigations should press ahead quickly, urged on by (i.e. not deflected by) Murdoch's decision today ... News Corporation are clearly not 'fit and proper' to take over the UK broadcaster BSkyB. The House of Commons needs to keep its resolve, and strike while the iron's hot ... it must not be deflected by Murdoch's 'little game' ... and it should impose tighter regulations on the media too (as self regulation has clearly not worked)!

However, watch the Politicians (e.g. Cameron, Hunt et al) try to turn things subtly around now ... now that the necessary 'sacrificial lamb' has been put on the table!

How predictable they are ... how they collude together in order to maintain their positions of power ... and how gullible they think people are!

Let's see if they're right ... and if their cunning plan works ...

Collusion and corruption - between the Media, Police and Government ...

2011-07-07T07:33:00.000-07:00

If anyone's in any doubt about the level of 'corruption', 'collusion' and 'misuse of power' in this country (e.g. bankers, politicians, media etc) ... then they need look no further than the 'circus' currently engulfing the media right now ...

Information, known by the Police for years, but 'quietly'/'corruptly' ignored, has now been raised that the 'News of World' has not only been illegally hacking phones of celebrities/politicians, but it has been paying corrupt Police Officers £10,000's for telephone numbers of crime victims (e.g. Milly Dowler), terrorist victims/survivors (e.g. 7/7) and war victims/relatives (e.g. Afghanistan, Iraq) too ... and then, just as shockingly, deleting messages/evidence so more messages could be left (so they could also hack new messages too).

Once the scandal broke there's been uproar ... and the media (News of the World and the rest of Rupert Murdoch's Empire), Police and Government are reeling trying to work out what to do ... and, unusually, they currently do not appear to have an answer!

David Cameron, the Prime Minister, has himself close links with current events, given his previous appointment of ex 'News of the World' editor Andy Coulson as his Director of Communications (who now appears to have been complicit in such activities) and also given his close personal friendship with Rebekah Brooks (currently News International CEO and former editor of the News of the World) too.

Mr Cameron has been predictably careful with his words ... confirming only that there will be an inquiry once the police 'inquiries' have concluded. But others are pressing the Government further over this whole murky affair, urging for both a public and judicial review into the handling off this affair, to avoid any risk of the police 'investigating themselves', and to avoid any risk of any 'cover-up'. People, such as Chris Bryant MP, are also demanding a very careful selection of who leads any such review, given the vast number of police and judiciary involved in secretive groups (e.g. the masons) ... [which in itself uncovers yet more about the corrupt world we live in!]

Given the illegal/unethical practices going on within the News of the World/News International, many (including OfCom) are once again challenging the Government over the proposed takeover of BSkyB by Rupert Murdoch's (owner of News Corporation, News International and News of the World).

Rupert Murdoch controls a great deal of the media already, yet Jeremy Hunt, despite strong representations (over 100,000), still appears to be resisting referring the takeover to the Competition Commission. However OfCom are themselves could consider, particularly given recent events, blocking the takeover on grounds that News Corporation does not appear to be a "fit and proper" owner of a UK broadcaster.

Ministers are loathed to challenge Murdoch, due to the power he already wields (or more specifically the misuse of power he wields!), but a number of Politicians are now saying enough is enough ... and Politicians must stop colluding with the media and put a stop to this murky/corrupt practice. Chris Bryant told the House of Commons that the 'whole political system has failed'!

I agree ... but do you think this will happen? ... IMHO the spin doctors (NB David Cameron was an ex-PR man himself!) will find ways to 'buy time' ... time to see how things develop and time to see how they can 'spin their way out of this' ... in order to clear their name ... and to give their 'friend' Murdoch what wants!

Hoping for growth - from corrupt service industries?

2011-07-02T02:54:00.000-07:00

As manufacturing starts to wain, and retail sales and consumer confidence continue to fall, are we going to see politicians once again try to highlight (and rely upon!) 'potential growth' arising from the UK's 'expertise' in the service sector?

Well if they do, they won't refer to the hard-pressed and hard-working retail sector ... but the corrupt practices of groups such as insurance companies and 'no-win no-fee' ambulance chasing lawyers ... who, by actively conniving together (e.g. insurance companies referring people to pushy ambulance chasers!), have forced up already sky high premiums by nearly 40% this year ...

The lawyers pocket £1000's in fees, and the insurance companies charge all costs back to the motorist. On top of this, the practice of insurance companies referring accidents to accident lawyers* is also making them 4x more profit than from providing insurance premiums - a shocking revelation. In effect insurance companies are now more keen to be a claims management company than an insurance company - to the detriment of all motorists.

Many people are now charged far more for car insurance than their energy** (value = keeping warm, cooking and washing etc) ... with the average insurance bill set to exceed £1000 by 2012. Insurance premiums are colossal - yet they add no value. Insurance companies call it 'piece of mind', but get Government to enshrine its purchase in law to force you buy it!

Insurance companies and no win-no fee lawyers are parasities - who leech off hard-working people and who destroy real value/wealth creation in this country! So why do politicians allow such scams to continue ... well because they are lobbied heavily by insurance companies ... and because many politicians are lawyers themselves!

Combining these parasitic organisms with the corrupt practice of banks will cause this nation to implode (i.e. collapse) ... not 'grow' ... and if politicians think we can solve the country's problems by exporting these 'services' abroad they are even more deluded ...

The leeches in our society know no bound ... and need to be driven out ... just like a plague of locusts/rats ...

* Even Jack Straw, a Barrister and ex Justice Minister himself, has said this practice is a racket and must stop!

** Despite energy prices also shooting up, and energy companies being referred to the competition commission!

Legalized counterfeiting ... followed by legalized theft!

2011-07-01T06:12:00.000-07:00

Hundreds of thousands of public sector workers have gone on strike today out of frustration ... over theft (in broad daylight) of their future livelihoods!

The Government have already forced staff, without consultation, to pay 3% more into their pension, and they are now looking to pay them much less in retirement* and make them work a lot longer for it too.

The Government says pension schemes are still unaffordable, but current public pension schemes in the UK are nowhere near the levels of places such as Germany ... whose economy is doing very well indeed! Many of the pension schemes are not in deficit either ... and have arrangements already in place for contributions to rise in line with any shortfall anyway!

It is clear that public sector workers are being forced to pay more, not because of any pension scheme deficit, but because the Government wants to raid pensions again and take money off hard-working public sector workers in order to pay for the cost of bailing out the banks (and going by the public response ... e.g. on Question Time ... the public are becoming increasingly aware of the scam).

To try to get away with their scam, the Government are trying (but failing) to pitch private sector against public sector ... Following legalized raids by the Government on the pensions of poorly-paid private sector workers, they are arguing that public sector workers should get minimal pensions too ... i.e. rather than putting an initial wrong right ... they want public sector workers to be equally badly treated ... as the rich continue to get lucrative pension deals, with tax loopholes/havens and enjoy £37bn in tax relief on their lucrative pensions!

It is incredulous (and immoral) that the laws of this country allow legalized theft ... where a politician can impose such measures without a mandate and without consultation ... and allow legalized counterfeiting by bankers** (creating money out of thin air, and charge it out at interest) ... and have politicians force hard-working people to pay for their hefty bonuses (for gambling, rather than lending money to small businesses keen to create real value/wealth) and then the cost of bailing them out (when their gambles fail).

The law is clearly in place to protect bankers and the wealthy ... to keep them wealthy ... and to ensure they can continue to increase their wealth ... at the expense of everyone else. And where this does not happen ... the Politicians are lobbied/forced by them to change the law so they do!

The idea that the rule of law applies equally to everyone, in order to safeguard democracy, is clearly a scam too ... but people are starting to realise this ... and the impact of this ...

For instance ask yourself the followinq ...

1. If you printed money in your garden shed ... you'd be locked up ... and

2. If you stole money from people ... you'd be locked up too.

So why are bankers and politicians getting away with these things every minute ... of every single day!

Given this how much longer will people allow them to get away with this ... judging by the growing number of hard-working people starting to make their voice heard ... not much longer!

And let's see how quickly the Government change the law ... to stop the most basic form of democracy ... the right to withdraw ones labour ***

* The Government have also already, without consultation, changed their pension schemes so any future increases are in line with the lower rate of inflation too (CPI instead of RPI), and they are now looking to change them to career average schemes too.

** Purely because the law of counterfeit doesn't apply when money "resides" as figures on a computer screen, and no longer relies upon a printing press!

*** The Government have already threatened this, and the Labour party, whose leader Ed Miliband recently told his party that they needed to once again represent hard-working people, have failed at the first hurdle! (which is not surprising really, given it was Gordon Brown's early £100bn raid on pension schemes that started their demise).

BMA rejects health reforms - for the second time!

2011-07-01T03:31:00.000-07:00

David Cameron and Nick Clegg were quick to call their 'listening exercise' a 'success', and point out how much the NHS reform bill is being changed ... however, doctors and the BMA have been just as quick to reject it!

In its annual conference this week the BMA overwhelmingly rejected plans to reform health and social care in England, saying the government could not be trusted.

Hamish Meldrum, head of the BMA, who recently referred to the Government's 'slash and burn' approach to NHS reform, was also quick to point out one particular area of concern ... potential conflicts of interests resulting from proposed payments to GP's (known as the 'quality premium').

He said the "Government's plan to reward GP's for 'doing well' in commissioning, in arranging services for their patients, will damage the trust patients have if GP's are seen to be paid for just organizing their services, or maybe, in patients minds, being paid for restricting access to services because of the financial problems" ... and went on to say "it is unnecessary and potentially damaging to pay doctors in this way".

His comments follow on from a recent debate at an annual conference of GP's, where a Bedfordshire GP said that "payment by results" was a "hideous undercurrent" in health secretary Andrew Lansley's health bill, describing it as a system that "threatens patient trust". He went on to say that if the government's plans are implemented in their current form, delicate decisions will be "corrupted by financial decisions" and would "result in no trust whatsoever between patients and doctors."

During a speech at the event, Dr Iona Heath, president of the Royal College of General Practitioners (RCGP), also said that GPs need to "badly put our house in order to acknowledge the extent of conflicts of interest pervading the context within which we work".

"We need to make it clear that there is a limit to which we will respond to ethically dubious financial incentives. Only then can we begin to provide the urgently necessary critique of the pervasiveness of financial conflicts of interests within policy making in the NHS."

Indeed so ... and well said! It is heartwarming to see there are still trustworthy honorable GP's (and doctors) prepared to expose the clear conflicts of interests and making equally clear their unacceptability (on ethical grounds) ... let's see if the Government are going to try 'listen' ... second time around !

Business 'Gurus' are still way out of date ... but are slowly catching on!

2011-06-25T04:19:00.000-07:00

Gary Hamel, a supposed well-known 'business guru' (from the United States) recently dropped in and talked to Peter Day's "World of Business" programme on his latest UK trip to visit to the London Business School.

Peter Day started by referring to all the soul-searching going on following the credit crunch... e.g. with regard to the ways banks work, markets work, and the kind of values/purposes of companies operating in such markets ..."

Day then went on to highlight how people are starting to challenge conventional wisdom on how businesses operate ... and suggested 'behaviour' currently appeared rather 'shabby' ... referring to a lack of trust ...

Hamel started by discussing the 'values crisis' ... and the fact that most CEO's focus almost "exclusively on shareholders and making the numbers, with everything else going to hell".

He went on to highlight how the web is starting to bring transparency and accountability, and said "we have to call them to account for the underlying values they bring to business ... particularly the banks ..." and said "we cannot have leaders of institutions whose primary motive is greed ..."

What we are now seeing (e.g. Egypt) is how people can mobilise ... if they choose to ... but Hamel noted how people are currently too complacent (i.e. apathetic) ... he said "people need to call leaders to account ... demand more transparency ... and demand more from them as consumers ..."

Peter Day referred to the need to address the lack of trust in business, and the fact that efforts currently focus too heavily on quarterly reports and short term profits. Hamel went on to describe the challenges ahead ... e.g. the need for honor and courage ... and the need to refocus on innovation and the production of value (looking beyond short-term profit) ... as well as a business environment where people become accountable for how they treat others, the environment etc ... (i.e. the role of enterprise in the wider world).

Hamel also referred to the lack of responsiveness in organisations, and the fact that innovation often involves taking money away from traditional activities, in order to invest in the future (which top-down organisational structures fail to support)! He said alternative approaches are becoming "clearer now" ... ones which involve empowering people, allowing people to collaborate and innovate, with all the data (and decision making powers) they need, and with everyone accountable (and rewarded) for their actions ... but he said we are being held hostage by 100 year old beliefs.

Most of the leaders of very progressive organisations, if they went to business school (and most of them didn't), have thrown most of what they learnt out! Hamel went on to say "There comes a point time in human endeavour, and I believe we are there in management now, when we have to go back and challenge first principles ... and old models" ... as such models had not had to face up to challenges such as ... changing very fast, being socially accountable, or innovating systematically ...

Hamel referred to the need for a paradigm shift, siting fundamental shifts in understanding within other disciplines in the past. For instance, Hamel highlighted how "there was no way of understanding the sub-atomic world by starting with Newtonian Physics, and it had had to go through a fundamental paradigm shift" ... and he concluded "that this is also going to have to happen in business" ... (NB the shift in understanding will not come from business schools themselves, as they are 'wedded' to existing doctrine, which is also 20-30 years out of date)!

He referred to the need for a new management model and governance model, and said most people teaching in business schools now know that "what they're teaching in business schools isn't relevant now". Hamel also said that they are trying to find out "where to go next", and went on to say that they may not lead the next revolution ... "it might come from managers themselves, and/or from people in social sciences and biology, who have a lot more to say on this [than business schools]" ... (indeed ... it has, and will continue to be, developed by forward-looking people who are commonly referred to as "creative outsiders", and whose ideas are almost always initially ignored/rejected)!

Hamel said new models are still kind of fuzzy ... but Peter Day quizzed him about the bankers and the "perils they are leading people into" ... Hamel said he was still "amazed at their state of denial", with groups such as Goldman Sachs being pulled up in front of US Congress, "for selling toxic products to their customers, whilst betting against these products on the other side"!

He said "people can't be passive anymore" ... and made it clear that current leaders/executives are "living on borrowed time" ...

Hamel is beginning to catch on ... but this knowledge (and much more besides) was uncovered (and made available to the world) a number of years ago (21st Century Management in a Lean World) ... and the World of Economics is also heading for a similar paradigm shift too (i.e. towards Leanomics) ... though a small, greedy (and power hungry) minority, who currently exploit (and profiteer from) the existing (and failing) system, will fight tooth and nail to resist such paradigm shifts ... and in this way Hamel is actually right ... people can't afford to be passive (i.e. ignorant or apathetic) anymore ...

Will bribery boost Nick Clegg's popularity?

2011-06-23T03:29:00.000-07:00

Nick Clegg is desperately trying to turn around the catastrophic collapse in his popularity and the support for his party ... following crushing defeats in recent elections.

Local election results were a catastrophe for the Liberal Democrat party, and the Referendum on Electoral Reform turned into an anti-Clegg vote instead of a vote on changing the electoral system (given it was his pet project) - which was a major setback to any real democracy in this country.

But will bribing the country, by offering them a few shares in RBS, help revive support for him and his party, or will voters see it for what it is? Early indications seem to suggest the latter, but if it this con does work, it will just go to show how low these politicians are prepared to go and how gullible, selfishness and immoral the people have become (giving up their principles, such as trust, honor and respect for others, for cash).

By giving the share money away they expect most of it to be immediately spent back in the economy, but if they used the money to pay off debt it would reduce the tax burden for generations to come ... so everyone would benefit (ie. children, and their children). However the problem with paying off debt in this way is that the children don't have a vote, so there is no point in Nick Clegg trying to bribe them! If Nick Clegg and the Liberal Democrats really cared about the future he would focus on the future generation too. Instead he wants to give everyone on the electoral register (i.e. with a vote) a few shares, but is not interested in putting any shares into trust funds for the young, or reducing their tax burden and/or helping to reverse the tripling of student fees!

Nick Clegg needs to remember that Gordon Brown tried hard (and failed) to gain popularity and also create dependency ... by bribing people with their own money (and money he did not have) and by expanding 'tax credits' to higher income groups! Brown then went on to warn people not to vote for someone else ... as they might lose the benefits they were now used to getting! His scam didn't work ... and voters still voted with the feet ... and away from one of the most callous and manipulative 'leaders' in history. Let's hope the electorate are clever enough to spot Clegg's game, and walk away from this scam too!

A failing country - rewarding irresponsibility, corruption and cheating

2011-06-20T02:15:00.000-07:00

In a speech in London, Ed Miliband, the current leader of the Labour party, admitted that, following a decade in power, voters looked upon Labour as the party which protected claimants abusing the welfare system (cheating), allowed reckless gambling in the City (corruption) as well as the reward of failure in the boardroom (irresponsibility).

He said "Labour - a party founded by hard working people for hard working people - was seen by some, however unfairly, as the party of those ripping off our society".

The Labour leader said the party must now focus on changing this perception, he said Labour must become a party that "rewards contribution, not worklessness." He said Labour must also focus on rewarding "entrepreneurship" and "wealth creation", and said that Labour "must change" in order once again to be "the party of the grafters".

He said Labour had failed to change the 'take what you can culture' (i.e. 'greed') and had "failed to change the ethic of the country" ...

Indeed so ... and they have now effectively admitted it!

In fact the truth is they made things far worse ... as they showed that Labour, a party backed by the unions, and supposed to represent the interests of honest hard-working people, failed to represent their interests at all ... and, corrupted by power, and focused on media sound-bites and self-interest, acted recklessly and irresponsibly ... without any moral/ethical values at all ...

Indeed Labour politicians promoted the line 'greed is good', and 'took what they could' for themselves (e.g. just take a look at the expenses scandal, and at all the executive/non-executive positions in large corporations/banks they took up for themselves) ... as they 'milked' their position of power, whilst preaching the moral high ground to everyone else! The truth is that New Labour, during their decade in power, destroyed the country ... and the vast majority of people in the UK are now paying the price ... (nb Tony Blair, on leaving office, immediately joined the bankers, and paid £1m/year for doing virtually nothing!) ...

So should we trust them now ... definitely not (nb Ed Miliband was himself part of the Government that destroyed the country - and will say anything to regain power). Ok, so should we trust the people currently in power ... definitely not.

One day there will be change ... but it will be led by very different people, and not the leaders of any of the current parties. It's a shame the unions didn't bite the bullet and create a new party to really represent the people (as they threatened to do following all the expenses scandals) ... to fight corruption and greed, as well Miliband, Clegg and Cameron.

They didn't pause ... and they didn't listen

2011-06-14T02:31:00.000-07:00

Anyone with any real desire/ability to question, will have known all along that the NHS 'listening exercise' was going to be no more than a smoke-screen ... as at the heart of the NHS reforms lies a fundamental strategy to save money (over £20bn in fact) by bribing GP's to ration healthcare ...

And the reason for this is simple and clear to see - if you want to slash costs in the NHS then the best place to do this is in the GP's surgery, i.e. before GP's recommend / suggest any kind of medicine/treatment to a patient!

Creating a situation where GP's can profit heavily from not recommending treatment creates a fundamental conflict of interest ... not in the interests of patients, but very much in the interests of their personal, and already inflated, bank balances (nb we already have some of the most highly paid doctors in the World)!

Such a situation clearly conflicts with their duty of care, as well as the hippocratic oath they take, but most people now go into medicine not to 'help people' ... but to make a 'shed-load of money'!

Under attack from the public as well as all the professionals involved in the NHS (nb even from the open, honest and honorable GP's who would themselves profit financially from such reforms), the Government decided to 'pause' and 'listen'. However the Government spent most of their time telling/persuading, and quietly pushing ahead with plans to give GP's responsibility for commissioning (nb and profiting from rationalising healthcare).

The Government also set up a group to run a 'listening exercise', but they made sure from the very outset that rewarding GP's (for rationing healthcare) was not going to be put at risk ... and doing this was easy - they just selected the 'right person' to 'lead it" ... i.e. Steve Field, a practising GP, and previously the head of the Royal College of GP's!

So why didn't they pick a person with no vested interests to lead the 'listening exercise' ... too much of a risk ... pretty obvious really!

While 'Rome burned' ... Politicians 'plotted' to topple the Prime Minister

2011-06-10T06:24:00.000-07:00

In the wake of the 7/7 attacks on London, and as Prime Minister Tony Blair focused on trying to stop further terrorist attacks, Gordon Brown and his top henchmen, instead of helping the Prime Minister, saw it as an opportunity to step up their plan to oust the Prime Minister.

This might be old news, but recently leaked documents now officially show how Gordon Brown's own self-interest, and his relentless pursuit of power, completely overshadowed any interest in helping to protect the British public.

Just as importantly, this was also true for his henchmen, Ed Balls, Ed Miliband and Douglas Alexander too, who were duely 'rewarded' by Gordon Brown once Tony Blair had finally been ousted.

And the big issue now ... Well Ed Miliband is now the leader of the Opposition ... and Ed Balls is his right hand man!

So we are now in a position where people do not trust the Government ... and they cannot trust the leaders of the Opposition either!

What a mess ... and with the Liberal Democrats having 'sold' their soul in pursuit of power ... and having reneged on all of their promises ... trust in politicians is once again at an all time low ... and the result ... frustration, anger and apathy / action !

Either way, I guess people will get what they deserve!

Government still want to reward GP's for rationing healthcare

2011-06-10T02:43:00.000-07:00

Before entering office David Cameron said the NHS was safe in his hands and promised to put an end to top-down reforms. Yet on entering office, his Government immediately embarked upon radical top-down reforms of the NHS, which no-one knew about and no-one voted for.

The reforms contain fundamental conflicts of interest and put the future of the NHS at risk, prompting opposition and anger from the public as well as every professional healthcare group (e.g. the BMA, the Royal College of Nursing, Royal College of Surgeons ...).

So Cameron said the Government would embark on a 'listening exercise", but in reality the Government listened very little (but talked a lot) and continued to quietly press ahead with GP commissioning (so there could deliberately be no turning back in this part of the plan)!

David Cameron has now given five pledges about reforming the NHS, but they are most noted for their omissions rather than what they include ... as there is no plan to stop GP's from profiteering from rationing healthcare ... i.e. the most blatant conflict of interest.

GP's have shown themselves to be more than happy to profiteer from NHS changes in the past ... and many are looking to these reforms to provide the biggest opportunity yet ... e.g. by profiteering from bonuses (and shares in commissioning companies) for rationing healthcare to patients, as well as being able to commission work to themselves or to companies they have interest in (e.g. shares, directorships).

David Cameron is making 'pledges' in many areas, but they are clearly not going to change the strategy of bribing GP's in order to ration healthcare - as this is the way that the Government plans to make £20bn of savings in the NHS ... and when you take out the additional profiteering from GP's, the real decrease in actual healthcare spending is going to be much more!

NB The Government are also still toying with imposing more competition from private health companies, and they're still looking to scrap their legal duty to provide the same level of healthcare to everyone wherever they live too! Which also go to show that the "listening exercise" was nothing of the sort, and that Cameron's 'pledges' are also not worth the paper they are written on ...

Democracy - what Democracy? ... The Government is pushing through reforms that no-one voted for

2011-06-10T01:48:00.000-07:00

In an article in the New Statesman the Archbishop of Canterbury, Dr Rowan Williams, has warned that the public is gripped by “fear” over the Government’s reforms to education, the NHS and the benefits system and accuses David Cameron and Nick Clegg of forcing through “radical policies for which no one voted”.

Openly questioning the democratic legitimacy of the Coalition, the Archbishop dismisses the Prime Minister’s “Big Society” as a “painfully stale” slogan, and claims that it is “not enough” for ministers to blame Britain’s economic and social problems on the last Labour government.

His two-page critique, titled “The government needs to know how afraid people are”, is the most forthright political criticism by such a senior cleric since Robert Runcie enraged Margaret Thatcher with a series of attacks in the 1980s. Lambeth Palace is braced for an angry response but Dr Williams, who became Archbishop of Canterbury nine years ago, is understood to believe that the moment is right for him to enter the political debate.

The Archbishop warns that Westminster politics “feels pretty stuck”, adding that his aim is to stimulate “a livelier debate” and to challenge the Left to develop its own “big idea” as an alternative to the Tory-Lib Dem alliance.

He said the Coalition is facing “bafflement and indignation” over its plans to reform the health service and education, he writes. “With remarkable speed, we are being committed to radical, long-term policies for which no one voted,” the Archbishop says.

“At the very least, there is an understandable anxiety about what democracy means in such a context.”

He also went on to say that the Prime Minister’s “Big Society” is viewed with “widespread suspicion” as an “opportunistic” cover for spending cuts, as previous champions resign in protest and given the Government Big Society Tsar has now also stepped down.

Yet arguably the biggest con of all is when Politicians stand up and criticize the lack of democracy in other countries around the world ... and site western democracies as an examplar to follow! Yet in reality, in British democracy, only around 2% of votes in marginal constituencies really count, and even these votes count only once every five years! As a result, Politicians, in-between elections, do what they want in their own self-interest, regardless of what they may have previously promised the electorate (which is arguably both immoral and unethical) ... which is why the Archbishop Canterbury has decided to 'shine a light' on it.

Until ignorance reduces and people stand-up to be counted (i.e. apathy reduces) such misuse of power will continue. Let's see how much longer they'll be able get away with it ... as things continue to get worse, and honest, hard-working people continue to face the harsh reality of paying the price of bailing out the banks and continuing to fund their lavish multi-million pound bonuses. Corrupt bankers and politicians have a lot to answer for ... and the day draws ever closer when they are called to account.

Aristotle himself said:

"Democracy is when the indigent, and not the men of property, are the rulers"

"In a democracy the poor will have more power than the rich, because there are more of them, and the will of the majority is supreme"

"No notice is taken of a little evil, but when it increases it strikes the eye"

"Poverty is the parent of revolution and crime"

and ... "The only good is knowledge and the only evil is ignorance".

Wise words indeed ... and just as revelant today.

Voters reject Clegg ... and throw out electoral reform

2011-05-07T02:52:00.000-07:00

In the referendum on electoral reform voter turn-out was less than half (60% didn't vote) and of those who bothered to vote, only 32% said they wanted to change the system.

Nick Clegg, Liberal Democrat leader, compromised everything (e.g. the tripling of tuition fees, the scrapping of EMA, NHS reform etc) in order to secure a vote on electoral reform, but then failed to win the vote!

And the irony of it all is ... Nick Clegg, by reneging on all of his promises and putting aside his moral compass (choosing power over principle), is the actual person who set doubt/alarm bells off in people's heads (e.g. about coalitions) and sounded the death nell for electoral reform.

Many will not have bothered to listen to the arguments, and simply wanted to deliver a protest vote against him (nb which is why the Yes campaigners tried desperately to stop him getting involved in their campaign)!

This would also explain why the Liberal Democrats suffered a rout in the Local Elections, whilst their coalition partners actually gained seats (nb even though their partners are the main party responsible for introducing the cuts)!

Nick Clegg is deliberately keeping his head down, but did say "When you have such a overwhelmingly clear answer you just have to accept it and move on. This is a bitter blow for all those people who believe in the need for political reform, but the answer is clear and the wider job of the government, and the Liberal Democrats in government will continue, to repair the economy, to restore prosperity and jobs and a sense of optimism in the country. That is the job we started and we will see it though. We will dust ourselves off and move on."

And the issue with this? ... well for many it was not a case of rejecting electoral reform at all, but the best way of voters showing they reject him (given it was Nick Clegg's key demand in coalition)! ... and to try to maintain power ... he's predictably saying the public rejected electoral reform (i.e. not him) ... and he will continue in power doing what he's been doing!

IMHO if the Liberal Democrats could get rid of him they almost certainly would (nb calls are there already from the grass-roots), but because of the massive damage that he's done to his party, they are now in such a state they could actually potentially implode. Looks like they are just going to try and hang on and hope for the best ... for now.

Meanwhile, Nick Clegg will still no doubt be contemplating his lifeboat (a safe Tory seat in the next election), particularly as the Conservative vote went up! But he will sit between two stools ... wanting to please an increasingly rebellious party (by showing he's prepared to stand up for people), and wanting to please Cameron and the Conservative party (to ensure he has a free passage to one of their safe seats)!

Trust, honour, respect ... Here I do think the electorate have given their verdict on Nick Clegg. However, apathy ruled the day and ignorance helped to deliver a protest vote but not electoral reform (nb by voting for electoral reform, but not voting for the Liberal Democrats in the local elections, voters could still have delivered a protest vote!) ... so Poweromics will continue unabated.

Whilst Ignoromics prevails, Poweromics will flourish ...

Apathy ... a 'sign' of things to come?

2011-05-02T13:42:00.000-07:00

Contrary to popular belief "Ignorance" is not bliss ... and levels of "Apathy" will determine the future ...

Levels of voter apathy in the forthcoming elections (local elections and the referendum on electoral reform) will signal to those currently in power, and misusing power (i.e. applying Poweromics), how much more than can get away with before people finally take notice and decide to do something about it!

Ignoromics is what allows Poweromics to flourish, and it's made up of two types - Ignorance (Type 1) and Apathy (Type 2). Why not take a look and see which type of Ignoromics those around you suffer from !

Whilst Ignoromics prevails, Poweromics will flourish ...

The Effects of Political Decisions on Young People's Future ...

2011-05-01T01:12:00.000-07:00

A 15-year-old boy was given a standing ovation at a teachers' conference after his speech on the axing of the education maintenance allowance (EMA).

Joe Cotton urged the National Union of Teachers to do all they could to keep education "affordable and accessible".

The GCSE student, from Calder High School, Yorkshire, said scrapping the EMA did not make economic sense.

The government is replacing the scheme to keep poorer pupils in education with what it says is a more targeted grant.

Joe, from Hebden Bridge, told the 1,100-strong NUT conference in Harrogate: "Like many other people, recent events have made me really aware of the effects that political decisions can have on my life.

"At the moment, education as we know it is under threat.

"Despite pledges and promises, tuition fees are trebling and vital schemes like SureStart and the educational maintenance allowance are being axed.

"Today, I'd like to stress how important it is that the EMA at least is protected."

He added: "In the words of Nadine, one of the 650,000 college students who currently receive it; 'EMA means I can go to college. Without it I just couldn't manage'."

He claimed that the EMA replacement announced last month was receiving £400m less funding and added: "Well I don't know how nifty Michael Gove thinks he can be with a loaf and some fishes, or even a bus pass and some text books, but he's going to need nothing short of a miracle to replicate the benefits of the EMA with that budget."

To applause from the floor, the teenager added: "I believe that if even one student is unable to continue education based on their family's income and not their ability, then the government has failed in its responsibility to uphold basic rights to education."

After he finished speaking, NUT general secretary Christine Blower took to the stage to congratulate him saying: "Now that's what comprehensive education can do."

And he was given a standing ovation by the delegates.

Joe predicted that many young people would be politicised by the cuts and changes to the education system.

He said politicians had their "heads in the clouds" if they thought scrapping the EMA and trebling university fees would not deter young people from staying on in education.

"It's a shame that Joe and many hundreds of thousands of young people like him will now find getting an education in this country is something that is harder than it was before," he said.

At the same time, a recent survey suggested over half of those currently at university would not have started their course if tuition fees were set a £9000.

All these point to a worrying future - a combination of an indebted youth and a disenchanted, less educated and a jobless youth ... and the Government's plan - make them work for their benefits! i.e. send them to the 'workhouse' ... where they do a maximum working week, for less than the minimum wage!

Well how did that happen? ... and how was that legal? Apathy will result in this kind of thing becoming a reality ... unless more people 'smell the coffee' and take it upon themselves to do something about it!

The NUT General Secretary Christine Blower referred to Joe Cotton's speech and told delegates it was vital they continue to protest against the government's planned education spending cuts. Speaking on the final day of the NUT conference, Ms Blower said, "the attacks we face ... go to the heart of the education service" and that resistance to the cuts is a "duty".

Looks like Michael Gove, Education Minister, might have to start listening a little more too ...

Is the Government 'listening' ? ... to an almost unanimous vote of no-confidence !

2011-04-13T12:30:00.000-07:00

The Government have said they need to 'pause' and 'listen' ... to the people and the professionals involved in the NHS .... and the RCN have made their voice heard very clearly today ... delivering an almost unanimous vote of no-confidence in the Health Secretary Andrew Lansley and his management of NHS reforms!

... and rather than address the RCN conference today, Andrew Lansley elected to meet a small group of nurses from around the UK instead - a decision that caused anger amongst delegates at the conference.

Peter Carter, the general secretary of the RCN, added: 'I hope the health secretary goes away and thinks about what we have said to him. If there aren't changes there will be a hardening of opposition.'

Ed Miliband warned that the plans would put hospitals at risk and lead to staff losing the power to do what they believed was best for patients. He also dismissed the Government's 'listening exercise' as no more than a 'PR stunt', adding that 'they appear to believe that people don't like this bill because the Government hasn't properly explained it ... but the opposite is true ... the more people understand and hear about these proposals the less they like them!'

'It's not a problem of public relations - it's a problem of principle' and added 'The answer to a bad bill is not to slow it down, but to junk it'.

No to GP commissioning ... to ensure good decisions and to avoid conflicts of interest

2011-04-05T03:11:00.000-07:00

MP's are heaping yet more pressure on the government now by suggesting GPs should not be allowed to take control of the budget all by themselves - take a look at this article in the Telegraph for instance.

The House of Commons' health committee said they should be joined by a range of staff including nurses and hospital doctors to decide how funds are spent.

The move would improve accountability and decision-making, with the MPs stating that the sole focus on family doctors involved in GP consortia is wrong.

Instead, they said the GP consortia should be re-named NHS commissioning authorities and be overseen by a board with representatives from other specialities.

"The expertise of other professionals was essential to ensure the best decisions were taken and to avoid conflicts of interest".

The MP's in the Health Committee are pointing out the obvious ... e.g. the need "to avoid conflicts of interest" ... Public health vs GP profits (from rationing healthcare).

NB their suggestion will not solve this problem entirely ... as a GP's decision to refer a person for treatment is taken in their head ... so most of the time people won't know whether their GP has rationed their care or not! Hence GP's should not be allowed to profit from decisions they make in any other way! NB if you think all GP's are honorable and trustworthy, just remember how they took the taxpayer to the cleaners the last time they re-negotiated their contracts (whilst dumping out of hours cover) ... which was unfortunately down to the incompetence of the last Government too!*

Let's see if the current Government, who said yesterday that they are 'pausing to listen', actually 'listen' ... or whether they're just trying to avoid a total massacre in the forthcoming local elections (before pressing on regardless).

* NB I raised this issue on Question Time at the time these changes were being pushed through, and a fellow blogger made the following point about a GP's recent comments on Question Time too.

"In a recent BBC Question Time programme a GP from the area from which the programme was being broadcast stated that he was aware of a conspiracy amongst certain GP's to loot the NHS budget for their own financial interest, which, in his view would be detrimental to patient care".

Another honest and trustworthy GP "spilling the beans" and the public ignore this at their peril - as ignorance blinds ... but apathy kills!

Pausing to 'listen' ... or 'avoiding a massacre' (in the forthcoming elections)?

2011-04-04T11:23:00.000-07:00

At last - the BBC is finally starting to raise the fundamental issues raised by current NHS reforms ... e.g. rewarding GP's for rationing healthcare (a clear conflict of interest - i.e. profiteering from patients and from not referring patients properly), as well all the other fundamental issues raised by every medical professional body (e.g. British Medical Association, Royal College of Surgeons, Royal College of Nursing etc etc).

And its worth remembering that the BMA only 'backed' 'GP commissioning' due to private lobbying/voting from 'greedy' GP's. Everyone else is against these reforms, including the vast majority of honest, trustworthy and honorable GP's (take a look at this post and this one for instance).

To push through these reforms the Government are trying to bribe the 'greedy' GP's to take part, by offering them lucrative personal rewards (e.g. fees, bonuses and shares in commissioning groups, as well as lucrative deals in which they can profiteer from rationising healthcare and referring work to themselves). They have also been quietly trying to force those GP's against the reforms into commissioning (which they are still trying to resist), but the Government are now saying they'll let another 'GP consortium' profiteer from doing it instead!

The Government will still try to press ahead with these controversial reforms, which will be to the detriment of everyone's health and well-being, and which will eventually destroy the NHS.

These reforms were not asked for, or voted for, by anyone (and were in no party manifesto) ... the introduction of the NHS was a key moment in UK history, and its effective destruction will be equally as dramatic ... we must not lest this happen ... and IMHO the BBC have a duty of care to continue to raise these issues too ... to ensure the public voice is heard!

In the meantime everyone can sign the petition to the Government ... as well as the petition being sent directly to their MP.

IMHO the Government are not 'delaying' to take time to 'listen' ... but to make sure they don't suffer a complete massacre in the forthcoming elections in May! Believing these people will listen is like believing Gaddafi will ensure a ceasefire ... and voters need to make sure their voice is heard in these elections ... as only by ensuring the coalition are crushed in these elections will they actually listen to anyone ... and stop the destruction of the NHS, as well as the removal of patient trust in their doctor to act in their best interests!

Bloggers are attacking the reforms from every direction, let's see if the Government listen ... I thought this post from a new blogger, Dr John Taylor, summed things up well by asking one simple question:

"The question is: Do I want my GP to look at me as a patient, with a focus on curing my ailments, or as a business person focused on reducing costs and maximising income? For me it's simple, I prefer my GP to remain a GP".

to which I added ...

"a fantastic post and I fully agree - this one simple question sums up the problem with these reforms perfectly ... and it highlights how/why the government have been trying to bribe GP's to back the reforms ... as he can't do it without them and he needs their help to ration NHS care at source (i.e. before being referred any treatment) - hence they were prepared to offer GP's part of the profits/savings (e.g. as fees, bonuses, shares in commissioning companies, referral work to themselves instead of hospitals)"!

Let's see how people vote in the elections too, and let's see if they start to listen then!