Nanny, in the shape of Gordon "Smiler" Brown and his chum Darling, has been loudly harrumphing recently about the banking crisis and how the banks have behaved disgracefully. Nanny has been particularly vocal recently about bonuses (ie rewarding failure), and Sir Fred "The Shred" Goodwin's pension of £650K per annum.
Needless to say Nanny is so cross that she has demanded that Sir Fred stop drawing on it (or face "legal" action), that the banks restrain their bonuses and is threatening a tougher regulatory regime.
Now, in the midst of all of this political spin (so willingly regurgitated by the ever so compliant and malleable media) designed to tap into people's latent disgust over the size of some bankers' pay packets, and the destruction of value by some of Britain's "leading" banks, lies a little problem for Nanny.
Can you guess what that is children?
Yes, that's right, she was in charge of the system during the years of boom:
1 Brown set up the tripartite regulatory system, which has proven to be such a failure.
2 Mervyn King (Governor of the Bank of England) and Hector Sants (CEO of the FSA) have both stated that Nanny insisted on a "light regulatory touch" during the boom years.
3 Sir Fred has stated that his pension was approved by the government, in the shape of Lord Myners.
4 Were Nanny to completely nationalise the "naughty" banks, as her media dogs and political midgets who support her are urging her to do, shares in every other bank in the UK would fall to zero, as people realised that their bank would be next. The result being the complete collapse of the capitalist banking system in this country.
5 Nanny allowed 100% mortgages in the boom years, now she wants them banned. Ironically, Northern Rock (now owned by us) has now been given Treasury approval for 90% mortgages. Isn't 90% almost as bad as 100% in a falling market?
Bottom line, the banking system needs to be saved (the people who destroyed value can be shot after it is saved) and Nanny knows this full well.
Why is she so vocal in her harrumphing then?
Why doesn't she speak more honestly about why the system needs to be saved?
The answer is simple, she is every bit as culpable as the bankers for this crisis; as it happened on her watch, as a result of her "light" touch and her tripartite system.
By the way, isn't it strange that at the very moment Mervyn King and Hector Sants publicly start having a go at Brown and his tripartite system, the details of Sir Fred's pension pot (agreed by Myners in October 2008) are leaked to the press via Peston?
Isn't it odd that Sir Fred's pension is making the lead in the media, such an easy story because it involves a hated banker, instead of the failure of Brown's tripartite system?
It seems to me that Nanny is trying to divert our attention again.
FYI, if you want to read my daily thoughts on finance and issues relating to this crisis pop over to www.loanbuster.net.
Visit The Orifice of Government Commerce and buy a collector's item.
Visit The Joy of Lard and indulge your lard fantasies.
Show your contempt for Nanny by buying a T shirt or thong from Nanny's Store.
www.nannyknowsbest.com is brought to you by www.kenfrost.com "The Living Brand"
Celebrate the joy of living with champagne. Click and drink!
Why not really indulge yourself, by doing all the things that Nanny really hates? Click on the relevant link to indulge yourselves; Food, Bonking, Toys, Gifts and Flowers, Groceries
Sir Fred was only doing what the rest of us would do given a chance; Looking after number one.
ReplyDeleteWhilst the pension does seem large, it only represents a small part of his £4m PA salary. Also, compared to the amount of money involved, it is like pissing in the sea....It makes little difference.
The media, led by Brown's Broadcasting Company, are whipping up the story, playing on the general public's envious side. This is a ploy to distract the gullible public away from the real issues. John Redwood's diary website is worth looking at for realistic, sensible, indepth coverage of the fiasco. He calls it like it is. Mr Cameron could learn much from him about true Conservatism and sensible economic policy.
Assuming Mr Brown does manage to set a precedent and take the pension away, which I doubt he can anyway, there may be an unforeseen consequence to his action.....If we are not rewarding failure, then Mr Brown and all the other cabinet members should loose their pensions too. And, although a Conservative myself, so should the shadow cabinet for not providing robust opposition to crazy government policies.
Even in the old testament, Joseph instructed the Pharoe to set aside some of the products of the seven years of plenty to see the nation through the famine......It is a shame Mr Brown did not pick up on this story from his father, who was a church minister, then perhaps he would have known that he could not have ended boom and bust and we may have had some reserves left to help us through this economic downturn. Instead, Mr Brown (and Mr Blair) prefered to throw money at everything and measure success by how much money was thrown at each problem, never how effective and value for money it actually was.....If I buy one Mars bar for fifty pence, I expect to get two for a pound, not one and an eigth as is the case in the return on government spending on education, the NHS and most other public services.
Mr Brown also threw our money at foreign nations as if he was an enthusiastic aunt with a big bag of confetti at a wedding.
All Labour governments end with the country ruined....Nu Labour will be no different....My only concern now is, how long it will take and how much it will hurt and cost us this time.
Yes - but what did Sir Fred get paid his £4 million p.a. salary FOR?
ReplyDeleteEven if his leadership of RBS had been a whopping success - which it obviously wasn't - is any individual really worth such a sickeningly huge paypacket? And I bet he got plenty of free gourmet lunches and lots of other perks too. Not to mention his bonuses.
The bankers who precipitated this fiasco have been even greedier than they were reckless. Yes, of course the goonish Gordon aided and abetted them and egged them on. But wasn't he more gullible than greedy? He really did believe he had abolished boom and bust - remember him telling Vince Cable, of all people, to learn some economics!
Well he was half-right, and should pay the penalty. He sure has abolished boom. Impeachment for the high crime and misdemeanour of destroying the nation's financial integrity at the very least, and if found guilty being whipped by the public hangman - if such a functionary can be resurrected [maybe Tonk will volunteer?] - from Tyburn to Temple Bar and back again.
"I'm a failed PM - get me outa here".
Something for the weekend:
ReplyDeletehttp://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dQBLgZkf1a8
Anticant:
ReplyDeleteNo, of course no one person is worth £4m PA....However, if some idiot, be that a company's board, a government minister or anyone else for that matter is daft enough to pay it, then fair play to him.....How can a professional premiership footballer be worth their salary?...
The problem I have is this; If we start to tear up legal contracts because with hindsight they are not convenient, the country would grind to a halt.
The government purchased effectively the RBS and other banks, either the minister responsible knew of the pension arrangements and did not raise a concern until now or he did not look hard enough at what he was signing.....There is a legal maxim that translates as, Let the buyer beware.
I think the whole episode is a complete and utter shambles but, people should not be able to go back on a contract or cry fail once a deal is signed, sealed and delivered.
Do you honestly think any ministerial pension that will be paid to our current cabinet represents value for money for the job done?....I definately do not!!
I see we and the EU are going to be paying to rebuild Gaza.
ReplyDeleteHamas must be laughing themselves silly.
Following on from Tonk's comments I would propose fining the politicians who cause a mess on their watch, whatever the mess. Sort of a 'victim surcharge' just like they applied to people in the uk who have committed some sort of technical infringement with an absence of victims.
In the case of regular politicians their entire salary would not be enough but would suffice.
For cabinet ministers their entire earnings and pension arrangements should be forfeit.
In the case of Blair and others who go on to make money privately having been set up at public expense, their private earnings should be diverted into paying for the results of their earlier actions. They could keep whatever was left of course and I would allow them a minimum 'keep' equally to the old age pension. (But no bus pass.)
What would be really fitting would be to see the Ethiopian guy just 'returned' to us from the US being represented in his claims by Cherie Blair, on a pro bono basis, with all compensation paid by T Blair from his recent and continuing ill gotten gains on the lecture circuit and salary for non-jobs.
Now that would be a good case of human rights and natural justice.
I'm sure we can find a similar suitable 'offset' for Brown.
According to Minette Marrin in today's "Sunday Times", the minister responsible for nodding through Goodwin's pension arrangements, Lord Myners, comes from the same 'filthy rich' stable himself, so probably didn't see anything untoward in the deal until the media [egged on by Brown as a convenient distraction from his own pisspoor performance?] started frothing about it.
ReplyDeleteThis episode typifies the whole sorry culture of "a nod and a wink, take the money and run" which has been egged on to ever grosser and greedier follies by our Whizzbang PM and former 'genius' Chancellor, who doesn't seem able to distinguish between prudence and profligacy.
anticant wrote:
ReplyDelete"... by our Whizzbang PM and former 'genius' Chancellor, who doesn't seem able to distinguish between prudence and profligacy."
Indeed.
No doubt he has a few selective blind spots about his own performance leading to his delusions of adequacy.
You are absolutely right Ken, I see something very similar in the U.S.A. when it comes to the mortgage debt that started this ball running. The government forced banks to loan to unworthy people, now they are busy nationalizing banks and blaming the 'greedy, evil businessmen".
ReplyDeleteI guess they don't want to let this crisis go to waste.