On the blaming of bankers for everything

Most bankers dwell in marble halls,
Which they get to dwell in because they encourage deposits and discourage withdrawals,
And particularly because they all observe one rule which woe betides the banker who fails to heed it,
Which is you must never lend any money to anybody unless they don't need it!

This isn’t really a blog post about banking but about blame. Or rather our desperate search for a simple, ideally faceless target for us to place society’s sins upon before casting it out into the wilderness. And right now the scapegoat – the receptacle for all the blame we wish to impart – is the banker.

And not without some cause.  The banks did lend money against flaky assets, bundle in up into wondrous packages, sprinkle them with fairy dust and lo, the financial instrument. For sure, those bankers levered the gold-plated, risk-free, government-protected personal deposits into trillions of complicated borrowings, lendings, re-lendings and re-borrowings – the reinsurance scandal writ on a new and vast scale. So, yes, blaming the banks makes some sense.

Except for one crucial point. Banking – at whatever level – is a service industry. I know that comes as a shock to those of you struggling to get some service out of your bank but banks are in the business of providing people with a service. And that service is (when you boil it down) lending. You need some cash where do you go? Assuming you’ve exhausted the piggy bank, the stash under the mattress and mum, you go to the bank.

So all those duff loans – you know the ones that brought the whole house of cards tumbling down – they weren’t created for the specific benefit of bankers (albeit that bankers were quite keen to shovel those loans out the door). Those nasty loans were for our benefit – we demanded them, insisted on our rights to buy houses, have bigger cars, further-flung holidays, new garages, dormer extensions and a mobile home in Filey. If we hadn’t poled up at the bank, hand out before us saying, “gissa a loan, mate”, there wouldn’t have been a banking crisis.

Understand that the banks screwed up the world’s economy so we could have an extra bedroom.

So blame the banks. Moan about the bonuses. Camp out in high street stores shouting about taxes. March the streets calling for “Robin Hood Taxes”, bonus taxes and the public whipping of any bankers who happen to wander by all bowler-hatted and umbrella-clutching. Pile all the guilt onto these folk – we the public that demanded everything shiny, that voted in a government promising us the rainbow and a share in the crock of gold at the end of that rainbow, we are not to blame. Oh no, we didn’t live beyond our means or support politicians who told us that boom and bust were over. We are not to blame.

So now the banking goat is laden with our sins. Send it out into that desert. And all will be fine. We can go back to cultivating the money tree, demanding our government gives us all the shiny things we want and complaining when any aspect of reality gets in the way of our enjoying our birthright of free stuff, cheap stuff and indulgence.

Dear reader, I hate to tell you that it wasn’t the banks. It wasn’t the government. It wasn’t the Americans. It wasn’t the EU. It was us. We did it, we are to blame.

But hey, the bankers make a great scapegoat! Heap on that blame!

....

Gordon Brown Quote of the day...

***

"I have made it absolutely clear what my views are: we cannot have people standing as candidates for the Labour Party who express these views...."

Gordon brown quoted in Daily Mail

Today's Gordon Brown Lie...the master at work!

***

Since the Afghans more or less invented low intensity warfare how on earth does Gordon Brown get away with saying this - without challenge?

"In response to allegations that the Government was slow to replace the soft-skinned Snatch Land Rover patrol vehicles, which are vulnerable to roadside bombs, Mr Brown said that it was not known for some time in either Iraq or Afghanistan that enemy forces would use guerilla tactics, including home-made bombs, rather than facing allied troops in open battle."

Gordon, this is a lie. And you are a liar.

H/T Man in a Shed for the article

...and just to make my point, Parlez me nTory directs me to this little book: Afghan Guerilla Warfare: Mujahideen Tactics in the Soviet Afghan War (Paperback)

...

If Gordon were a councillor....

****

One of Labour’s more egregious pieces of legislation was the 2000 Local Government Act. You know, the one that got rid of the “out-of-date” committee system and replaced it with sleek, streamlined, single-party executive committees and useless scrutiny. This is legislation that Gordon Brown supported and continues to support.

Well under that legislation we also got the Standards Board for England and an enforceable ‘code of conduct’ for Councillors. This defines when a member is subject to the provisions of the Code:

“1) A member must observe the authority's code of conduct whenever he -

(a) conducts the business of the authority;
(b) conducts the business of the office to which he has been elected or appointed;or
(c) acts as a representative of the authority,

and references to a member's official capacity shall be construed accordingly”

So actions within a Local Council Cabinet Member’s office would unquestionably be in a place where the ‘Code’ applies. And under the general obligations of the ‘Code’ a member must:

“treat others with respect”; (2(b))

…and must not:

“…conduct himself in a manner which could reasonably be regarded as bringing his office or authority into disrepute.” (3)

…and must:

“…if he becomes aware of any conduct by another member which he reasonably believes involves a failure to comply with the authority's code of conduct, make a written allegation to that effect to the Standards Board for England as soon as it is practicable for him to do so.”

It seems to me that, on the assumption that Gordon Brown’s behaviour is as described in reports, had he been a Councillor rather than an MP, there would have been a case brought before the Adjudication Panel of the Standards Board. And, assuming the behaviour was shown to have happened, its nature (throwing things, shouting at junior staff, etc.) would warrant a suspension.

Now, as people know I think the Standards Board, Code of Conduct and associated kangaroo courts should be scrapped. But Gordon doesn’t.

Good thing he’s not a Councillor then?

...

We won't stop bullying until we stop promoting bullies

***

Bullying is the deliberate and persistent targeting of an individual or individuals to achieve a given end – most commonly their collapse into tears, resort to violence or departure.

There has been a great deal said, much speculation and a great deal of unpleasantness surrounding Gordon Brown’s behaviour. Now I don’t know whether Mr Brown is a bully, whether he condones or encourages such behaviour in others or whether his alleged bursts of violence should be seen as a major problem or not. But I do think we have a problem with bullying in our political culture – indeed, in our wider society. Put simply, we are very tolerant – even praising – of behaviours that are typical of the bully.

John Terry is celebrated for his forthrightness and “strong-leadership” as he praised Didier Drogba’s attempt to bully a referee over a particular decision. And it’s not just the former England captain at fault – such behaviour is common-place as this BBC report from 2003 about Manchester United players “refusing to bully” referee, Andy D’Urso. Bullying tactics are rife in football, have crept into cricket and I’m sure will begin to arise in other sports.

Examine some of the persistent targeted attacks on particular individuals – be it the Daily Telegraph’s assault on Nadine Dorries, the #kerryout campaign on Twitter or Labour’s constant smearing of Lord Ashcroft. These are attempts to use bullying as a deliberate campaigning tool. None of these targeted individuals are without fault – but that cannot justify these sorts of bullying tactics, surely?

In a world where malicious gossip, the unattributed briefing, the marshalling of attack messages through such hideous ideas as “mob Monday” and the joyous celebration of the aggressive, unheeding, shouting leader - look at Sir Alex Ferguson, at Sir Alan Sugar, at Alistair Campbell. These are our roles models of leadership – vulgar, ignorant, aggressive, selfish and often just downright unpleasant. Step back and ask how anyone could condone - let alone employ - a man as unpleasant and bullying as Tucker from In the Thick Of It. Is it any surprise that those at the bottom of that slippery pole think the way up is to climb over the crushed careers of others?

Anyone who has been on the receiving end of an unjustified, malicious and unpleasant campaign of political bullying – a straightforward attempt to destroy someone’s career – will know that there is no defence. Nothing you can do to stem the tide of snide, the avalanche of maliciousness. The bullied person ends up isolated – who would risk all that nastiness rubbing off on them. As was said of me by a senior Liberal Democrat (not to my face, of course, he’s too chicken to do that): “Simon finally ran out of friends”.

All the anti-bullying websites, all the well-meant “resources” for schools are useless besides a political and social culture that thinks targeting and destroying an individual – because we can – is acceptable. Instead of discussing the stuff about Gordon Brown, should we not be talking about the bigger issue of bullying? Should our leaders not be setting an example rather than taking advantage?

...

How labour will confiscate your savings

***

The public finances are in a mess. The level of Government borrowing cannot be sustained. The prospect of serial strikes by public sector unions looms. International agencies, the markets and the central banks eye Britain with doubt.

But Gordon cannot increase taxes much more – he cannot increase taxes on the rich beyond the (pointless and negative) level of 50% or revenues will drop. He can’t muck about with VAT for fear of really screwing the “recovery” – assuming there actually is one. And there’s only so much cash that can come from tinkering with allowances, duties and the like.

What Gordon would really like is to get his hands on our savings. On the billions we have squirreled away for our retirement, to pay for long-term care, to provide for our kids education, to do any number of little things we thought were important. But nothing is more important than Gordon pretending he doesn’t have to cut public spending. Nothing. Not your retirement pension, not the lump sum to pay off your mortgage, not the cash sums you’d like to give to your grandchildren. Nope. Gordon needs that money.

And he’s going to get it. Not by confiscation – that wouldn’t be popular. He can’t introduce a stinging wealth tax without plumbing new depths of unpopularity. But he’s going to get it…

…he’s going to use inflation to make your meagre savings get him out of the mess. Let it rip…last month +1% - the most rapid increase on record. This month +0.6% - the second biggest monthly increase. And next month? Expect similar.

The Government’s strategy is to use inflation to reduce the impact of massive debt and to protect Labour’s key public sector voters. That’s why they printed £180bn in so-called “quantitative easing”.

Inflation is 3.5% now. Expect 4.5% - even 6% - over the next few months. And watch the value of your savings shrink! Transferred neatly into the reduction of the real value of government debt. Let it rip!

...

Thanks for the snow...can we have spring now?

***

Snowdrops, dafodils, tulips, birds shouting a lot about sex, trees coming alive again, frog spawn...Spring is great.

...

And at the end of this Spring we get to kick out Gordon Brown. Bring it on!!

...

Getting paid more than Gordon - as if!

***

The PM gets paid £197,000 (I hesitate to use the term “earn” in this case) and various pundits are frothing about the fact that some people in the public sector get paid more than this. Like so what?

Leaving aside the fact that my cat could do a better job of PM than Gordon for the cost of a bowl of IAMS and a soft bed, we shouldn’t be comparing the pay of politicians with the pay of officials. Moreover Gordon gets two free houses, fed and watered, ferried around everywhere – I doubt that beyond indulgences, Gordon has any of the outgoings you and I have.

So lets assume that we spend a third or our income of housing and 25% on essential spending (food, drink, travel, etc) – for ease of estimation we’ll call that 60%. Since Gordon doesn’t have this expenditure his real salary is somewhere in excess of £300,000.

That’s more than the head of the civil service, any local council chief executive and most of the quangocrats. After all from their bloated salaries they have large houses, foreign holidays and school fees to pay – without the access MPs have to an expenses free-for-all.

...

Made me grin.....the Gordon Brown fan

****

A teacher asked her class how many of them were Gordon Brown fans.

Not really knowing what a Brown fan is, but wanting to be liked by the teacher, all the kids raised their hands except for Little Johnny..

The teacher asked Little Johnny why he has decided to be different...again. Little Johnny said, 'Because I'm not a Brown fan.'

The teacher asked, 'Why aren't you a Brown fan?'

Johnny said, 'Because I'm a Conservative.'

The teacher asked him why he's a Conservative. Little Johnny answered, 'Well, my Mother's a Conservative and my Daddy's a Conservative, so, I'm a Conservative.'

Annoyed by this answer, the teacher asked, 'If your mummy was a moron and your daddy was an idiot, what would that make you?'

With a big smile, Little Johnny replied,

'A Gordon Brown fan.'

...