Many families are expected to live on incomes less than the MPs take in second home allowances.  Yet these same MPs manage to sit in front of their constituents and explain that thet are doing everything in their power to help through the current crisis.  With this greedy “if I can claim it, I will” culture rampant in government, is it any wonder the banking, finance and big business sectors became so bloated with greed and self-interest.  It is an issue of morality; for an MP to take a six figure sum for spending a few nights a week at her sister’s house is wrong by any standard except that expected by the Public Accounts Committee.  For another to claim for staying at his parents’ house occassionally, especially when it is less than a half-hour drive from his own home, displays an incredible degree of greed and selfishness.  If you are unemployed or on a low income and live in accomodation owned by a family member, you will not be paid housing benefit and your family will be expected to support you!

I feel the need to start a database of MPs, detailing the amounts they have claimed, what they have claimed for and the MPs stated attitude towards Freedom of Information (FoI) and the issue of the exemption of MPs expenses from the FoI legislation.  Until we get full disclosure of MPs expenses (and I doubt we ever will), such a database will never be complete, but I think a strong correlation between large, ridiculous or dubious claims and an opposition to disclosure of expenses through FoI would be quickly established.

The loss of life caused by the banking failures may not be as dramatic and immediate as that caused by the actions of 9/11, but how many people will commit suicide because of their losses?  How many individuals might die from illnesses that could have been cured, but now lack the health care following redundancy? How many other lives have been ruined? How many people have worked hard all their lives, saving responsibly for their old age, but now face retirement with savings that pay little or no interest and/or share portfolios that are worth less than their original purchase price?

The reward for Al Qaeda, following its attacks, has been a sustained onslaught from the combined military of a multitude of nations.  The rights and wrongs of these actions and the overall strategy in Afghanistan are not the issue here.  The point is that western Governments have readily embarked on a multi-billion pound military action to pursue those who tried, but failed, to bring down the West.  The apparent rewards for the cheiftans behind the banking and finance industries are multi-million pound bonuses, severance packages and pension pots, with no action being taken against any of those responsible and many actually finding cozy, well-paid positions nessled up nice and close to the Government.  Only today (17th March), we learn that Sir Fred Goodwin is entitled to ANOTHER £3,000,000 on top of his already ludicrous pension pot.  How come these enormous amounts of money are only now becoming known? Has no one in our inept and useless Government thought to check ALL the figures yet?

Perhaps it’s time that those who caused and allowed the banking system to become so bloated with festering assets and attitudes should be treated with a similar degree of “extreme prejudice” as Al Qaeda.  To allow these people to have and continue to benefit from their poor judgement, excessive greed and inept leadership is ludicrous in the extreme and insults the vast majority of individuals who will inevitably bear the final costs.

One alternative approach to Sir Fred and the other banking and finance whiz-kids, who have been taking multi-million pound bonuses for years, might be to mention the possibility of an in depth investigation of the accuracy of the accounts upon which their bonuses were calculated.  The recent collapse of the entire banking system proves that many assets held by the banks weren’t worth a fraction of their supposed value.  In this context, the accounts produced were false and misleading, whether by intention or not.  If the senior banking and finance executives are shown to have profited from inaccurate accounting, their assets would become liable for seizure.

These individuals, who can hardly be described as on the breadline, might prefer to pay significant proportions of their bonuses from the last few years into an emergency fund.  This could then be used to save some of the worst affected families from the harm caused by the greed culture that pervaded the finance system.  Priority could be given to those who, due to age, disability or other issues, have little chance of rebuilding their financial situation from scratch.  A few million pounds could help prevent 100 families losing their homes for the want of a few tens of thousands; a few tens of millions would bring similar help to 1000 families.  This wouldn’t solve the whole problem, but at least it would show willing, reduce the financial gain for those who contributed to the current global turmoil and save some of the poorest families from abject financial ruin that they may never escape without such helpcounting,.

When he was allowed to “take early retirement” last October, he magnanimously gave up his right to up to 15 months’ salary (approximately £1,300,000) and was praised by Alistair Darling for “doing the right thing”. Normal people would at best get one month’s paid notice if their work was found to be as flawed as Sir Fred’s leadership.  However, he accepted the addition of around £8,000,000 to his pension pot, taking it to around £16,000,000, ensuring he would receive £693,000 every year until he dies.  He is 50 now, so, if he lives to 80, he will get £20,800,000.  If he makes it to 100, he’ll get £34,700,000.

This is a ridiculous amount of money for any man to be paid for digging the garden, especially if his actions help bring about the financial ruin of so many.  It’s not as if he needs the money.  In the last year before the RBS collapse he received a total of £4,200,000, including a bonus of £2,860,000.  Surely the bonus he was paid was based on inaccurate accounting as many of the assets held were worth virtually nothing.   He also leaves with 2,530,000 shares in RBS, although these are now worth considerably less than he expected; Just ask any RBS shareholder how much they have been devalued! If Sir Fred was accepting bonus payments based on company profits calculated from inaccurate or misleading accounts, perhaps there may be some grounds for legal action and recovery of his assets.  Sir Fred Goodwin received his knighthood, on the suggestion of then Prime Minister Tony Blair, for services to the banking industry.  It would seem only reasonable for him to be stripped of his title in light of the true nature of his service to the banking industry and the the thousands who are now suffering in his wake.

This whole fiasco could have been averted, if only we hadn’t got such an inept Government.  It is all well and good making noises about taking legal action to block the pension payments, but Alistair Darling and, presumably, Gordon Brown could and should have stepped in to ensure Sir Fred would not profit further from his time running RBS from the outset.  Apparently, it was believed that Sir Fred’s entitlements were legally binding.  Well they should have read or got someone to read the small print.  When the reins of power are held by such greedy financiers, devoid of any conscience and self-interested politicians of such ineptitude, what chance do the little people stand.

How can any decent, moral individual regard a spare room as their home and the place where their family lives as “just some place I visit a few days a week”, unless there is an ulterior motive?  Through this blatant, cynical exploitation of the rules, Ms Smith has pocketed around £116,000 over the last 11 years.  The additional expense incurred by her can only be the rental value of a single room in her sister’s house, but why should she be able to claim this from the taxpayer.  If you are claiming benefits and wish to claim Housing Benefit to cover the cost of rent, the rental value of your accommodation will be assessed before any award is made and no award will be made if the property you are renting belongs to a family member.  Did Ms Smith’s sister really charge her more than £10,000 per year to sleep in her spare room three or four times a week?  How will Ms Smith face a constituent trying to feed their family and keep up payments on a mortgage with a total income of little more than she gets from this ruse due to redundancy or reduced working hours?

What Ms Smith has done may be within the letter of the regulations and she may well have discussed the details of her claim with the relevant Parliamentary authorities.  This only goes to show that the system is as cynical and exploitative as Ms Smith’s decision to maximise her drain on the public purse.  Why hasn’t the noise from the Opposition over this issue been deafening?  Could it be that similar stories of exploitation from within their ranks are waiting exposure?  It is the system that allows, even promotes, this style of leadership.  What we need is a change in governance not a change in Government!

It strikes me that a simple, basic law of economics dictates that Quantitative Easing will cause more problems that it will solve.  The law of supply and demand dictates that the more scarce an item or commodity is the higher value it will command.  Conversely, when the supply of a commodity is increased, its value will decrease.  OPEC is regularly (although lately unsuccessfully) manipulating the price of oil by restricting or increasing production.  If the inherent value of the pounds in our pockets is decreased, the price of our food, fuel and other goods will increase in terms of the number of pounds needed to buy them.  This is inflation.  If the inherent value of the British currency decreases relative to foreign currencies, mainly the US$ and the Euro, the costs of importing goods and materials will increase.  This will also drive up inflation, but will also increase the cost of manufacturing in the UK putting more jobs and businesses at risk.

The traditional mechanism employed by the BoE to restrict inflation is an increase in the Base Rate, so, if the inflation rate does start to increase, we can expect the Base Rate to go up nearly as quickly as it was brought down.  However, under these circumstances, I guarantee that the High Street Banks’ reluctance to follow the BoE figure will be notably absent.  Furthermore, there will be no cap or collar to restrict the amount of interest mortgage holders will subjected to.  The Government has made a lot of the arrangement made with banks to allow borrowers at least six months of deferred payments on their mortgages before action is taken.  Woe betide anyone who has six months arrears on their account if interest rates reach the 15% or so seen in the late 1980s.

Through all this we must remember that this whole crisis was started by the greed of bankers and financiers and the incompetence of “light-touch” regulation by Government.  The BoE has tried to ease the crisis by lowering its Base Rate and the taxpayer has pumped money and guarantees at the High Street Banks, but they have failed to pass on the available funds or pass on all of the interest rate cuts.  This is why the strategies employed by the BoE and our Government have failed to ease the slump into recession, resulting in the possibility that Quantitative Easing may be upon us.  The continued greed and selfishness of the banks, coupled with the Government’s continued reluctance to impose regulation on them, may soon lead to actions being taken that will do financial harm to the people of the UK and the country as a whole for decades, even generations.

We are told that “light touch regulation” and large bonuses were and still are essential to the UK economy due to the taxes raised.  Between 1997 and 2007, the tax raised from the Financial Sector totalled £85 billion pounds, but the officially predicted increase in Government debt due the financial crisis is £250 billion.  Furthermore, earlier this week the CBI announced that the true cost would be at least £100 billion more than the official estimate. It would be nice to know how many billions were paid out in bonuses by the Financial Sector between 1997 and 2007!

This morning we awake to the news that the European Court of Human Rights has decided to award Abu Qatada £2500  in compensation for violations of his human rights.  Yet again, this will come from taxpayers pockets .  He chose to preach hatred and violence, the other 60 million or so people in the UK did not choose to live in fear of the actions he encouraged others to carry out.  Neither did we choose to have our taxes spent on his lengthy and costly presence in the UK, the cost of feeding and housing him nor the enormous cost of the legal battles over his removal to Jordan. If his human rights were violated by his admittedly clumsily handled incarceration, surely all of our human rights to a peaceful, secure existence are violated every time he speaks and by his very presence in the UK. Will the European Court of Human Rights consider awarding compensation to each and every individual in the West who lives in an increased level of fear due to Qatada’s pronouncements?

That only leaves the question of whether or not a criminal offence may have been commited.  The recordings made by the Sunday Times reporters obviously convinced them and their editors that the Peers in question were willing to take money in order to introduce amendments to legislation. If the Peers were absolutely certain that the allegations of such willingness were unfounded, surely they would, or at least could, sue the Sunday Times.  I have not, as yet, heard of such a reaction. If it is not a criminal offence for Members of either House to accept cash, gratuities or any other form of recompense from individuals or businesses to influence the wording of legislation, its passage into law or the direction of overall policy, it jolly well should be.  In fact, it should be a central tennet of any decent democratic system.

However, the practice of allowing those with money to buy influence on policy and legislation has been with us for many years and has been honed to a vertitable art form under New Labour. Is it a meer coincidence that these four Lords are elected peers?  These people were amongst New Labour’s replacements for hereditary peers, introduced to improve the Upper House and it is only a couple of years ago that the cash-for-honours affair raised the question of whether those with enough money could buy their way in.  As far as I’m aware, the police investigation into those allegations was abandoned for very similar reasons, giving the distinct impression that the police may have believed that some peerages were linked to donations to the Labour Party. However, they knew that it would be nearly impossible to gather enough evidence to secure any convictions.  To what extent both sets of allegations are true remains shrouded from public view, but it certainly seems that something is decidedly rotten in Denmark.

The whole project displays yet another example of New Labour’s inability to develop a cohesive policy and its contempt for the poor and rural communities of the UK.  Most people in the UK never fly, so the construction of another runway will only benefit the small proportion that do fly to or from Heathrow. The vast majority of people use cars for transport and, given the strict targets for carbon emissions reductions, any increase in air traffic will require a disproportionate reduction in road traffic.  The Government’s mechanism for encouraging a decrease in car usage is to increase the price of petrol, so we can expect the duty charged to escalate significantly in coming years.  In urban areas, where Public Transport may be a realistic alternative, this policy may be fair and effective.  However, in rural communities, Public Transport is frequently close to useless.  People in such areas will have to carry on using their cars, paying ever increasing prices for the petrol.  Thus, those in rural communities, where levels of income are considerably lower than the National average, will pay a carbon surcharge to support the flying habits of the better off.