Thursday, February 26, 2009

Don't blame Sir Fred - blame capitalism

No this is not a piece of Marxist propaganda. I am a firm believer in the mixed economy and capitalism with rules. I don't believe a completely socialist system works for long simply because it takes no account of human greed and competitiveness. And while greed might be an unwholesome quality, it does provide an incentive which reliance on public spiritedness does not.

But it has to have rules and principle and common sense. Qualities sadly lacking in the contractual deals involving executives in Britain's most powerful companies. We have Sir Fred Goodwin, former Chief Executive of the humiliated Royal Bank of Scotland refusing to pay back any of his pension of £693,000 pa despite having presided over the worst performance in British banking history. But why should he? He has lived a lifestyle that paid him £4 million per annum during his tenure at RBS where he feels he simply took high risk decisions that failed. His pension was part of his contractual deal and he sees no reason to apologise for it.



I can understand why. We have allowed a situation to develop where top executives in this country have paid themselves obscene amounts of money for years and there is nothing to stop them. I have figures only as recent as 2006 but in that year a relatively unknown British executive with a very down to earth name, Mick Davis of Xantra Mining, was paid a mind-boggling £15 MILLION per annum plus added benefits and an index linked pension. Lord Browne of BP earned over £1 million as did Tesco boss Sir Terry Leahy and Charles Allen, former head of ITV.

But if you don't need that kind of money to live a decent lifestyle just get yourself into the right gentlemen's clubs and get recommended as a non executive chairman. Back in 2006, the average pay for these guys was £270,000 for two days work a week. Sir John Sunderland of Cadbury-Schweppes managed to clock up 3.5 million in that year plus share options of £2million for his two days a week.

Then, of course, there are bonuses. Back in my day, bonuses were an exception. They were paid for exceptional and tangibly measurable work. Now they are built in to the 'fat cat' salary structure. In 2006, only 4 Chief Executives on the FTSE top 100 failed to take a bonus as part of their 'package' and there is no legal requirement to show how bonuses are 'earned'

Now here are some figures. In 2006, bonuses made up a staggering £19 BILLION of the amount paid out in the United Kingdom. Here's an evening more staggering figure - £10 BILLION - or over 50% - was paid out to the Financial Services industry (surprise, surprise) - the very people who have landed us in the bloody mess we are in now.

Well at least we do recognise who has landed us in the bloody mess we are in now. The finger is usually pointed at the trade union movement and the total amount involved in a settlement for thousands of men and women who can only fantasise about the lifestyles - and paid deals - of some of their bosses!!

More worrying question marks over the police

The case of Eddie Gilfoyle, in jail since 1993 for the murder of his pregnant wife, is the latest example of a very disturbing pattern which seems to run through Britain's police forces.

Paula Gilfoyle was found hanged in her garage with a suicide note nearby. The prosecution had alleged that Gilfoyle tricked his wife into signing the note before arranging her death.



There have been a number of investigations into the case and suggestions of a miscarriage of justice but now some facts seem to have emerged. Merseyside police denied the existence of certain notes taken during the investigation which would have made their case against Gilfoyle harder to prove. One was that the time of death determined by the police surgeon who examined the body would have placed Eddie Gilfoyle at work, with an alibi, at the time of his wife's death. These times were never revealed to the defence or to the jury. Existence of any notes which might have supported Mr Gilfoyle's evidence were suppressed and their existence denied until Patricia Gallan, a deputy Chief Constable with Merseyside police, admitted them. Three officers were subsequently internally investigated for withholding evidence, two being cleared by their Chief Constable and the other having 'retired'.

It's far from the first time - and won't be the last - that the police have been accused of withholding or manipulating evidence in order to support their own case. I don't know the truth about Gilfoyle, or half a dozen other cases across the country where evidence has subsequently been proved to have been suppressed or tampered with, but one thing is clear. As long as this continues to go, with, it seems, relative impunity, any claim that we have the best legal system in the world is a joke.

I don't believe that, in general, the police want to lock up the innocent to achieve targets or make themselves look good. I do believe, though, that the police are often so frustrated by the legal red tape in which their investigations are hampered (in their eyes) that if they believe they have the right person, there is often a deliberate intent to 'get a result' regardless of whether that means some sleight of hand or deception.

When this kind of thing is discovered there appears to be all too little done about it. I accept that the police have a difficult job. I accept that the government is worried about cracking down too hard on a force which already suffers from a morale problem. But this kind of thing cannot be allowed to go on. There surely HAS to be covert support from the top officers for this kind of misplacing of information and denials to be sustained. It happens too often. And the oft used explanation that such-and-such an officer has 'retired' should not spare him or her from the full weight of the law that officer was once paid to execute. Too easy.

When someone is deprived of their liberty for a crime they did not commit, there should always be a thorough and exhaustive investigation by an independent body of how that investigation was conducted. The fact that so many of these cases keep coming to light shows that something is rotten and there are insufficient penalties to deter it.

Sunday, February 22, 2009

Has government lost its moral compass?

I have no idea whether the expenses claimed by Jacqui Smith for her sister's home in London are justified or not - I will leave any judgment to an enquiry which should be in possession of all the facts.



I do know, though, that I am heartily sick of our parliamentary rulers claiming that they have 'abided by the rules' rather than done what they believe to be honourable. We have had the same justification put forward by the 'cash for advice' Labour peers, by the candidates for the Labour Party deputy leadership - and even Gordon Brown has spent £9000 of taxpayers money on refurbishing his domestic kitchen. OK again it might be an entitlement but I've never had £9000 of taxpayers money to spend on my kitchen and I've never earned as much as Mr Brown does.



Yes I know that the Tories do it too and probably on a grander scale. But I don't expect any better from them. I do feel that the Labour Party should think long and hard before using - or abusing - the privileges granted to them by the terms of their parliamentary allowances. Instead, the very people who should be setting an example, particularly in times of economic crisis, seem to be scouring the small print to see what they can get away with - and that's a pretty unpalatable sight from a Party which used to claim the moral high ground.

We seem to have no moral leadership from our politicians and this is a time when the whole country - for many reasons - has never needed it more.

Saturday, February 21, 2009

'Dream ticket' or a nightmare?

If rumours are to be believed Harriet Harman, the Labour Party's esteemed Deputy Leader is positioning herself to make a push for the leadership of the Labour Party when either Gordon Brown is appointed Global Finance Guru or loses the next General Election (which appears favourite) She is attempting, it is said, to put together a 'dream ticket' of herself and Jon Cruddas as the answer to Labour's woes and to restore left wing values.



Now my only query is why a bright spark like Cruddas would ever want to associate himself with Ms. Harman. This woman has reached and stretched beyond the level of her own incompetence on more than one occasion, most notably when she pissed off Frank Field, a man with ten times her intelligence, who in 1998 resigned from his job rather than report to Harman. She was found out later that same year and left in a cabinet reshuffle.



She has failed at several posts and was censured during her successful Deputy Leadership campaign for failing to declare several donations on time. Though she claims to have a 'left wing agenda' she voted for the Iraq War in 2003, later saying she wouldn't have done had she known all the facts. Wow!! Some of us, Harriet, saw it as morally wrong from the outset!!

If this woman becomes leader of the Labour Party then its death knell will be well and truly sounded in my view. She shouldn't be put in charge of a whelk stall!

Friday, February 13, 2009

When is it right to curtail free speech?

I am somewhat concerned by the ban, imposed yesterday, on the right of Geert Wilders to enter the United Kingdom. I know he is controversial, I know he is facing trial in the Netherlands for inciting racial hatred. But I believe at the moment he is not a convicted criminal, he is a Member of Parliament in the Netherlands and thus, not only a fellow citizen of the European Union but one of its elected representatives.



It seems to me that his invitation by Lord Pearson of UKIP, though it may have been mischievous in intent, was a controlled visit to show his film 'FITNA' to a select group in the House of Lords.

I understand the film attempts to link the Koran and some of its verses to acts of terrorism by Muslim extremists. It may well be a piece of out and out racist bigotry or it might pose some awkward questions. I don't know. I haven't seen the film. But then neither has Boy Wonder Miliband who was breathing hot air all over the TV screen yesterday justifying the government's decision to ban Mr Wilders on the basis of his film that 'seeks to justify Islamophobia and divide communities'. When asked if he had seen the film, Miliband spluttered that he hadn't 'but , come off it, we all know what it's about, don't we'

Well I don't and clearly Miliband doesn't either but apparently a knowledge of the facts is not a necessary credential for this Labour Government to once again step in and impose some authoritarian sanction. It may well be that there are good reasons for banning Wilders from the country but I didn't hear them from Miliband. Just the usual righteously indignant rhetoric.

I don't suppose Wilders was all that put out. Its less than an hour back to Holland and I daresay his flight was paid for. But I worry about the government's consistency. We have allowed a number of controversial characters into the country recently, like reggae singer Rodney Pryce who hates homosexuals and glorifies black gang culture. Surely we have to be extra careful when the target is a fellow citizen of the EU with rights of free travel within the Union unless there are very specific grounds to refuse him. Does this qualify? I have my doubts.

Michael Portillo has criticised the decision on the basis that an 'unknown twit and a bigot has been turned into a minor celebrity' and there is some truth in that. My bigger fear is that this government is not refusing entry based on the seriousness of the offence but how much trouble is likely to be stirred up by the targets.

So if radical Islam threatens to take to the streets, set fire to effigies and generally make life uncomfortable for the forces of law and order, does that mean all its critics will be automatically banned? If that is the way the right to free speech is being interpreted, as appears very much the case, it makes the government look very weak indeed.

Sunday, February 08, 2009

Edging closer to an authoritarian state 'in the interests of national security'

I am getting sick to death of this f***ing Labour government which I once used to serve with enthusiasm as a Party activistfor many years. How idealism changes into disillusion so quickly.

Now, following ID cards and other computerised stores of information designed to give the government ever greater control over our lives, we have the proposal of a national travel database which will record every detail of where each one of us travels to, including our names, addresses, where we went, how long for, who we went with and even our seat numbers. Why? Need you ask? The same old hoary chestnut about 'national security and protecting us from terrorism'. Well I might be mad but I'm getting to the point where I'd be prepared to risk my life at the hands of some politically motivated assassins than continue to accept this ever increasing drift towards an authoritarian society where the government knows our every move.



I seriously wonder if this is in conflict with European Union rules and rights? Maybe worth challenging in the European court. And I wonder how many nations will play along with this? Hopefully people will be able to exploit loopholes, say travel to Ireland and get a long distance flight from there.

Why am I bothered? I must have something to hide. That will be the reaction of supporters of this move. No, not at all. I go abroad quite frequently and its all about human rights. If I want to tell people Ive been to Prague or Berlin or whatever I'll do it. I hate the idea of some all-seeing state taking away that freedom and replicating the worst suspervisory aspects of Stalinist Russia.

I hope this withers on the vine. But given the ease with which the government has pushed through other illiberal legislation in recent years with either a token scrutiny or none at all, I fear the worst.

'Liberty' where art thou? It's time to stand up and be counted once again - and by some means convince the complacent British not to stand for all this. Sadly though the alternative of a Conservative government is the only means of protest in our so-called democracy. And the prospect of that is even worse!

Thursday, February 05, 2009

We bark and YOU roll over!

The day after Hillary Clinton paid warm tribute to the 'special relationship' between the US and the UK, the amazing outburst came from two of our High Court judges accusing the United States of demanding that evidence of torture in the case of Binyam Mohammed, a British national held at Guantanamo for four years, be suppressed 'in the interests of national security' (Yawn...oh how many more times?)



It is almost unprecedented for our judges to step into the political arena in quite such a vehement fashion and they were clearly angry that the United States government was withholding vital evidence. But their anger was not reserved solely for the US government but for the British government who, it seems, were aware of what was happening to Mohammed and did absolutely nothing to intervene on his behalf. It would seem, after 4 years incarceration, that no charges will be brought against Mohammed and he will be released.

There is no point in railing against the US government and its inhuman treatment of suspected Al Queda operatives. All that is well documented and took place under the jurisdiction of the most hideous Administration America has ever inflicted on the world. Now we have a new President and it's fair to give him time to clean up America's act.

But it IS reasonable to continue asking what the British government sees its role to be in this 'special relationship'. Yesterday boy wonder Miliband denied that the British had 'rolled over' in the face of American pressure and denied too that the Americans had threatened to withhold intelligence sharing if the British broke ranks on this one.

So our High Court judges lie do you think? They are prepared to risk the full weight of government anger on some sensational press report from the 'Sun' ? I don't think so somehow. LT. Colonel Yvonne Bradley, the military lawyer representing Mohammed, visited him last week and her assessment was blunt. "What the US is doing," she said, "is not about security or intelligence - it's about saving face."

And this presumably is part of what the 'special relationship' is all about. America commits human rights violations at Gitmo and the British help to cover them up. Maybe, as Jeremy Paxman said recently of George Osborne's relationship with his leader, David Miliband should be given a shovel so that he can walk timidly behind the American horse, collecting all its manure and depositing it somewhere where no one will notice the smell. Seems to be our international role in life.

Monday, February 02, 2009

EU employment rules a mixed blessing

The situation which began at the Lindsey oil refinery in Lincolnshire and has now spread across the country has highlighted a glaring weakness in the interpretation of EU free migratory employment laws. The idea of a mobile European workforce, free to take up jobs in all EU countries where there are needs to fill, is a good one and I support it - as I do our membership of the European Union. Indeed thousands of Britons have taken advantage of these rules to find work in Spain, France and Germany and, of course, Britain has had many workers from Poland and other eastern european countries to fill a need when our economy was expanding.



The greatest test of these freedoms was always going to come in times of recession when the economy is contracting and jobs are being shed. If one looks at the free movement of labour in a theoretical sense, then it makes perfect sense - certainly in terms of traditional right wing economic theory. An imbalance occurs through protected wage agreements in one country and, in a recession, companies seek to protect profits by legally importing workers whose wage scales do not fall within the protected agreements, thus production costs come down, wages of the indigenous population come down to match and thus they become competitive again.

Great in theory but in practice what has happened with the energy plants is a red rag to a bull and a recipe for industrial unrest and something has to clearly be done to stop a deliberate attempt to get round national wage agreements and the government is right to suggest that there are loopholes here which need to be closed. On the other hand I am sorry this is giving succour to all those fanatics on the right - including the BNP - who are using this issue cynically as an argument for leaving the European Community. In my view membership of the EU is a much greater strength than a weakness and we should resist the temptation to only take from it what suits us and refuse to honour the rest. This has been Britain's position right from day 1 and why we are regarded with suspicion as the 'problem child' by so many in the EC