Guest Blogs...

For a few weeks we are going to hand this site over to guest bloggers who are at the centre of the events that we have covered recently. We have assembled people, mainly from the political and banking communities who, we think, can give a more personal take on the major events of 2009, during these last turbulent months before the general election.
The aim is to move beyond this site's generally 'sideways look' at the issues, its swipes against the modern 'betes noires', in order to glean some sense of life at the coalface. We will start tomorrow with an ex City employee who bailed out during the financial meltdown of 2008. He has a rather more objective view of the industry than his former colleagues still working in the square mile, who are now eyeing with glee their prospective year-end bonuses. He will also be giving his take on current affairs, sagas like bonuses and MPs expenses, as he takes a keen interest in politics. We will also follow the trials and tribulations of his daily existence in these difficult times, as he attempts to start up a new business whilst also pursuing an increasingly complex, 'alternative' lifestyle involving two women who derive from a rather different world than his: The 'political classes'.
His blog will kick off later this week.

News in brief...

Chancellor Alistair Darling has praised the ingenuity of the investment banking community. He was responding to grumbles from some quarters about the size of bonuses that RBS bankers are going to receive this year. It is claimed that these could be as high as 5 Million. But Mr. Darling claimed, "This shows how smart they are. A year after we bailed them out with taxpayers cash, they are getting rich on the proceeds. And we can do nothing about it. You have to hand it to them. They have got us just where they want us."

Elsewhere, a Treasury official has been explaining the 'trickle down' effect. This is the proposition that justifies some people in society earning huge amounts of money, whilst others earn next to nothing. "These high salaries at the top benefit everyone," he said, "The wealth feeds down through the rest of society through taxes, charitable giving and of course the purchase of goods and services that keep the rest of the economy moving. Trickle down is rather like this: I tuck into my massive hog roast, then I feed the rest of you by chucking you morsels and scraps of food from my plate. That way we all get fed."

David Cameron has demonstrated that he will follow Gordon Brown's lead by making pointless additions to the house of Lords. He intends to elevate the property 'guru' Kirstie Allsop to the upper chamber. Mr Cameron denied claims that this was the 'window-dressing' approach to political appointments of the kind pioneered by Gordon Brown in recent years. "When it comes to doing up a house," said Cameron, "Kirstie knows all there is to know. It's just that in this case the house is the House of Lords. The old place needs a lick of paint."

A survey has revealed that ninety per cent of the British public feel sorry for MPs and believe that the press should stop criticising them over expenses. No-one knows precisely how the survey was conducted or whom researchers interviewed, but the market research company involved claimed that it applied the same rigourous standards as Sir Thomas Legg had to his report on MPs expenses that appeared earlier this week.

An MP writes

An MP's lot is not a happy one. We are way down the popularity stakes. Probably somewhere near bankers, journalists, lawyers, estate agents, bloggers, parking wardens, dustbin snoops, bloggers, mortgage brokers, train operators, other commuters on those trains, tourists, stars of reality TV, BBC executives, and last but not least, microbloggers. All people going about their daily business. All people who are loathed for what they do.

In fact everywhere you look nowadays, you see someone that you hate. Someone that you love to hate, want to hate, need to hate. Let's face it, we need something or somebody to rant about. It allows us momentarily to escape our own pathetic lives, with our vain aspirations, our frustrated ambitions. It allows us to blame for all our misery all those other people who got off their backsides and made something of their lives. And yes, you loved them while their stars shined, but you hate them now that they've shown themselves to be human.

But to some extent it is much, much worse for MPs. We never asked for more than we received, for more than what we felt we'd earned in the execution of our duties. At least not at the time, we didn't. If we claimed for expenses, then we only claimed what the claims office approved. Nothing more, nothing less. And let's face it, people of our calibre could have earned a hell of a lot more by working in the private sector, say in the now much maligned City of London.

The institution of parliament is being battered on all sides. Even a lawyer's injunction appears to outweigh the Bill of Rights that says that MPs have the freedom to ask questions in the House and that those questions can be freely disseminated. Newspapers, ordinary taxpayers are enraged at the activities of the house, and are telling us they are in no uncertain terms. We are indeed under seige.

So, where is all this anger leading, one can only ask? Surely not to a place that will profit this great country of ours with its noble customs, its respected institutions, its hard won freedoms.

I ask you then, from the bottom of my heart: Look kindly upon the MPs when they face the draconian response to the expenses scandal that they now face. No-one, surely, can look upon the Legg report without feeling a modicum of sympathy for our beleagured MPs? No-one can behold the inconsistencies, the inaccuracies, the iniquity of his findings without thinking: This Legg fellow is going just a bit too far. Shouldn't this Legg fellow slow down just a bit? After all, MPs are not that bad.

Because, the way I see it... that was the whole point of this report.... Surely?
-

Suckers!

Stars and their agents in the US and Europe have reacted angrily to the news that tabloid newspapers regularly bought and published stories that were fictitious. According to the Guardian newspaper today, the team behind the Starsuckers film that opens later this month sold the tabloids bogus medical records about celebrities such as Hugh Grant, Guy Ritchie and Ricky Gervais. None of the newspapers that published the stories made any effort to check the integrity of the information.

A girl band singer who was falsely reported to have undergone breast augmentation said: "I think it's disgusting. They have no right to poke their noses into my breasts. The only person who has the right to handle my breasts is my agent. That's what an agent's for: controlling what the papers say about my boobs. They should be ashamed of themselves, printing stuff like that."

A television presenter who had previously claimed her weight loss was down to a popular diet plan, went ballistic when one tabloid claimed that she had actually had a gastric band fitted. "They ruined everything," she said. "I could have lost the contract to flog the diet plan on TV, because no-one would have believed it worked. The fact that I did actually have a gastric band was information that my agent alone was entitled to release. And the whole point about news management is timing. He would only release that kind of information after my contract had ended and when my book about my 'weight loss woes' came out."

A Hollywood actor who had apparently 'embarked on a two day bender involving drink, drugs and whores', claimed: "It's crazy. My agent would only punt that kind of story if he wanted to spice up my public profile. But in my latest film, I play a timid bank manager who's more of a slippers and cocoa type. Maybe if get a part in the next Tarantino's movie, an item like that would do wonders."

His agent said, "If anyone's going to sell cockamamie stories to the press, I'll be the one who does it. What's the point of bogus news, unless it's to publicise my client's latest movie?"

In defence of bankers

This blogsite likes to give the 'other guy' the chance to defend himself. In the 'court of public opinion', everyone is allowed a say. Yesterday, a beleaguered lawyer asked us to see his point of view in relation to the Guardian/Trafigura injunction. And it has to be said that his argument struck a chord with many. Today it appears that the backlash against bankers is growing after it was revealed that bonuses this year are going to be substantial. It is only right therefore to allow a senior investment banker to defend himself on this site. Again he has asked for his name and employer's name to be withheld.

"Once upon a time it seems like we were the good guys. The sun shone out of our proverbial butts. You people in 'Main Street' truly admired us, wanted to be among our number. You worshipped the Italian silk suits, the Porsches, the penthouse flats, the jet-setting lifestyles. Even when that comedian Oliver Stone created the heartless Gordon Gecko, with his 'greed is good' ethic, you lapped it up. You loved it, admit it.

Well, I can tell you, I worked hard to get where I am. I have two degrees, one from MIT and one from your beloved Oxford University. From my first day on the trading floor I was working all the hours God sent me. Up at half five in the morning, at work by seven, not home till nine or ten at night. And the in-between bit was a jungle, that's for sure. A screaming, frantic hell-hole of a jungle. This was the rat race ten times worse than any of you guys have ever seen it, I can tell you.

So we guys are generating the wealth in your City of London that pays most of your taxes, that allows London to become the second greatest city in the world. And suddenly you discover that this wealth is also having a knock-on effect on your property prices, making you richer as well. And you're thinking, let's not have just one house but two houses or three or five or ten. You can get rich that way. You too can drive Porsches, and wear the designer suits. And before you know it, bang! You guys living your sleepy suburban lives become millionaires. You feel that you have become one of us. You are actually one of us, discovering for yourselves that, hey, actually greed isn't all that bad.

And then it all falls apart. The credit crunch arrives. There is crisis, there is meltdown, there is ruin, the fear of a second Great Depression. And the government has to step in, has to prop up the financial system with your taxes, boo hoo! Why boo hoo? Because its also propping up that property bubble, that consumer bubble, that lifestyle bubble that you had come to know and love. It is propping the whole infrastructure of exchange that supported those bubbles.

So we guys, whom you so kindly propped up back then, are now starting to generate wealth again. We are generating the wealth that your Gordon Brown needs to get this country recapitalised. We are generating the money that is going to pay you guys, the taxpayers, back. And do you know why that is? It is because, yes, we have returned to our old ways. But this time it's different. We are not carting around the toxic waste they call credit derivatives, or CDOs. So you guys don't need to worry anymore. We are trading only safe stuff, making real, tangible profits.

But, and this is the big but. Your Gordon Brown must realise, probably does realise that incentivisation must continue if we are to achieve the profits that we are achieving. We still need the stimulus, the nourishment, the drug, if you like, that feeds our enthusiasm to make, make, make. So he, Gordon, must know, and this is what you should also know: That if we guys in the banks are going to pay back you guys, the taxpayer, and pay you back quick, what we need is quick results, quick profits, and most important, quick incentives. We need our bonuses, quick!

So bonuses are not just back, but they need to be back. Bonuses, incentives, the wealth they generate, they are the way that we can get this country back on its feet again. And maybe, just maybe, you will all one day be able to share in that wealth again, and make your fortunes, and just possibly have the chance to live like investment bankers, just as you've always wanted. Because, let's face it: We can all do shadenfreude from time to time. We can all hate the other guy who 'caused' the crisis, but in the end he is really just a scapegoat, your whipping boy. But when things turn round, when things pick up, when the wealth returns, you guys will all long to be stars once more. You guys will want to get rich.

And maybe then, those sad and sorry events of 2008 will seem a distant memory. Yes, a bad memory perhaps, but one that you, that we, that your politicians, that everyone around will have learnt from, so that when the next crisis comes along, as of course it will, we'll all be much, much wiser, and, most important of all, we'll know how to handle things better.

So remember, when you hear people ask you whether greed is good, or greed is bad, just think: Greed is the only thing that will get us out of this mess. And if you don't get that, then guys like me will simply up sticks and take our business to Switzerland."

Twitter versus the Injunction - A Lawyer's 'Take'

"It is indeed a sorry state of affairs when the due process of law is confounded, not by government, but by the forces of populism and the shallow and capricious phenomenon that we call the internet. That the users of a social networking site like 'Twitter' defeated an established legal firm seeking to protect the reputation of its esteemed client, is indeed troubling.

It is apparent to many not just in my own profession, but in the business community and in certain areas of government that the 'world wide web' is behaving like the 'wild west': It has become barbarous. Long established laws, principles and ethics are being casually disregarded. Procedure, convention, practice in the orderly, responsible dissemination of information are being trampled underfoot by gossip, speculation and chatter. The execution of appropriate legal undertakings are being undermined by frivolous and unbalanced opinion.

When an established law firm went to court this week to obtain an injunction it followed due legal process. It did so to protect its respected client from the kind of tittle tattle that is rife on the internet and that can destroy the reputation of a company as well as the livelihoods of its employees. That an august institution as the Law can easily be undermined should give us pause for thought. Who will defend you or me when our reputations have been thus maligned?

Do we really want an internet that is wild and capricious, that has no rules nor boundaries? What if, say, we lived in a world where anyone, yes anyone, had access to the law, whatever their intent, whatever their status, and despite their inability to 'put their money where their mouth is'? Well then Law would become a mockery, a free-for-all where any man could take issue with any other - however nefarious, or shallow, or ill-informed his intent might be. The courts would be overrun and would no longer have the capacity to defend those who generate wealth, those who keep our society ticking along - those who make society what it is.

Surely we do not want all men and women to have free and unbridled access to the internet any more than we would want them to have free and unbridled access to the law? For that, we surely understand, must lead to the breakdown of everything that this society stands for, the trampling under foot of everything that is dear to us."
(Lawyers name and firm withheld)
-

Off the record, On message.

The following excerpts come from a private conversation between a leading journalist and a very senior politician. Subjects discussed range from the ongoing expenses scandal to the freedom of information act. In accordance with current suppression of information requirements, we can only publish the excerpts on the understanding the politician is not named. In order to comply, he has the pseudonym, Mr. Bean.

Interviewer: Mr. Bean. People are asking why so many in your own cabinet were guilty of making some of the most outlandish claims. Is this what you expected of the party that you joined some thirty years ago?

Mr. Bean: What you have to realise, Nick, is that times change. Over the decades we have had to adapt our principles to suit the changing economic climate. It is easy for the shadow cabinet to claim less on expenses, but that is precisely because they have more wealth in the first place

Interviewer: But surely the reason why people joined your party in the first place was simply to realise those very principles, not to acquire wealth? That was always part of the deal, wasn't it?

Mr. Bean: Yes, but the point I'm making, Nick, is that this party has moved with the times. We now live in a world where wealth is no longer considered a dirty word, even amongst the ranks of the liberal-left. Nowadays it is acceptable to receive the same financial rewards for the same - or even better - capabilities. We live in a meritocracy.

Interviewer: Which leads me on to the other point that I wanted to question you about: If you could justify the expenses claims thus, when they were originally made, why did you and other senior politicians try for so long to suppress the information from the public?

Mr. Bean: Well, we cannot have a political agenda that is set by people who are outside of politics and who do not understand the nuances of government. And of course I am referring here to the media.

Interviewer: But you use the media to lay out your own political agenda, surely?

Mr. Bean: Indeed we do, but it is our job to set the political agenda in the first place, not theirs.

Interviewer: But isn't that why we have the freedom of information act? So that the media can uncover aspects of the political agenda of which they are not fully cognisant.

Mr. Bean: No that is not what the freedom of information act was designed to do. It was designed to be used responsibly. And the media has not used it responsibly. It has simply used it to their own ends. This is precisely why the Mother of Parliaments is in turmoil right now. And that cannot be a good thing for our democracy.

Interviewer: At least it has made you politicians do something about these outlandish claims.

Mr. Bean: But it was not handled in a responsible way. We simply cannot have complex political issues aired in public like this. It would be like a free for all. And that is precisely my point, Nick.

Interviewer: Yes, Mr. Bean.

Mr. Bean: But now, if you'll excuse me I have to go and announce another policy initiative on YouTube - on how we are going to deal with this very expenses crisis.

Interviewer: Goodbye and thank you, Mr. Bean.

Three Men in a Boat

Gordon, David and Nick rowed upstream towards Westminster after their long summer break. They had all been feeling a little seedy back in July and had agreed that a rowing holiday was the solution to their 'bad medical conditions'. But now as they returned to the Houses of Parliament on the first day of the new political term, they reflected on the key issues of the past year.

"We need to restore trust in our politicians," sighed David, "And trust in the political system as a whole." David was refering to the expenses scandal that had broken in the early summer. A recent poll had revealed that politicians were now the group of professionals least likely to tell the truth. "We all mentioned that we had to restore faith in the political system. But I can't actually remember whether we had any concrete plans to make it happen. It's been such a long summer break."

"Oh yes, I agree," replied Gordon. "Indeed it seems like an age since that occurred. But funnily enough, I was actually thinking that we need to restore trust in our business men, our banks, our economy in general. The electorate lost trust in those things an even longer time ago." Gordon was refering to the near catastrophic meltdown of the banking system that had occured a year earlier and that was only averted by government intervention. "At the time," he went on, "We all criticised the greedy bonus culture. And when the taxpayers ended up bailing out the banks, we all said 'no more massive bonuses'. But now, many of those bailed-out banks intend to pay their employees huge bonuses again, even though they are only still in business thanks to the hard pressed taxpayer."

Nick seemed absorbed in the fish that darted around the boat. "Goldfish," he said.

"Sorry?" said the other two.

"I was thinking that people appear to have the memories of goldfish. You know, about three seconds. And isn't that what Conservatives and Labour have always traded upon when in power? That people will soon lose interest. As long as the papers don't keep banging on about it you don't need to worry. And even if they do, all you have to do is make the right noises and announce new policy initiatives. And then people will eventually lose interest again and go back to watching 'Strictly Come Dancing' or 'X-Factor'. It works every time."

"He's right you know," said David. "A week is a long time in politics."

"And a few months," responded Gordon, "Is a much longer time in political awareness."

The three men all grinned at one another. They tied up the boat at Westminster and wandered into the Houses of Parliament, patting one another on the back.

Nobel politics prize

The Nobel committee has been justifying its bold decision to award the 2009 peace prize to Iran's president Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. There was a lot of scepticism about giving the prize to a man who has long harboured nuclear ambitions and who has done more than any former Iranian leader to further the country's nuclear capabilities. But the committee claims that its decision was based on sound reasoning.

First, this is the inaugural award ceremony for the new chair of committee, Thorbjorn Jagland, and it is thought that he wanted to 'kick off with a bang'. Clearly it was not that inspired, at his first ceremony, to award the prize to someone with a track record - as the committee did with former laureates Jimmy Carter and IAEA chief Mohamed ElBaradei. Much better to be bold and enterprising, even controversial. Now the world knows, the man on everyones lips is Thorbjorn Jagland.

Second, the committee was aware of its duty to tell the world what to do and how to go about doing it. "When you are awarding the most prestigious prize that the world has ever known, it is always wise to do so in a way that encourages the others, as it were. We quite literally have world statesmen banging on our door every day, on their hands and knees, begging to be awarded the prize. But we know that we, on the committee, are the custodians of world peace. We know that we can change the world if we want to. This prize is precious. And we must hand it to someone who will value it, cherish it, be affected by it. Receiving the prize should be a life changing event. And now that we have awarded it to President Ahmadinejad, we will be able to shape Iranian foreign policy for years to come. And that is of course a good thing. You see, to a great extent our job is about perception and the shaping of perception."

In a separate development there are plans to award a posthumous peace prize to Genghis Khan, who did so much to influence world history. "By our actions we hope that his fame, fortune and power will henceforth only be associated with the good, more peaceful aspects of his life and that people will stop commemorating the less salubrious side that included widescale slaughter and destruction. And just to reiterate, our job is about perception and the shaping of perception."

Warlords, take note.
-

The state of the state

In a series of bold and radical initiatives, a Conservative government will allow ordinary citizens to set up and run the kind of local services that they have always expected the state to provide for them. Gone will be the days where parents spend endless evenings in autumn queuing outside the best state schools in the borough or crowding into the pews at the local church, desperate for a place at the 'faith school'.

Every parent in the land will now spend their evenings negotiating with the private firms who will help them run their own schools and arguing with other parents about educational policy. Under Conservative plans all schools will be allowed to opt out of state control and be run independently by sponsors such as parent groups. Private companies will be allowed to charge a 'management fee' for running these schools.

Whilst the aims are laudable in terms of offering greater control over their childrens' education and less dependency upon the state, it is hard to see them helping the lot of these already hard pressed parents. Most do indeed expect the state to be answerable to them (as opposed to the other way round) but they simply want what government has promised them all along, as it grabs their taxes: Better schools. Do they really want DIY instead?

The Conservatives are currently faced with the dilemma of reducing the role of the state whilst holding on to the sacred cows that the state established in the first place. They intend to guarantee the NHS and Sure Start, the 50p income tax rate and the minimum wage. The approach to education is well-intentioned but then... Ah! If only every school could be like Eton.

Many would agree that 'statism' and big government have become an issue over recent years, even that the state has become far too intrusive. But quite how one handles the issue is really the question. If they fail to comprehend the ramifications of their new political 'cross-dressing' then - to borrow from PJ O' Rourke - the Conservatives will end up the party that says that the state doesn't work and then get elected and prove it.

Bullingdon conference update

A member of the Conservative party has been arrested after he stole a 150 pound bottle of champagne from the Midland Hotel in Manchester. Police detained him overnight and released him the following morning without charge.

In his defence he claimed that his behaviour was in keeping with the spirit of the 'Bullingdon Club' to which the party leader, David Cameron, the Shadow Chancellor, George Osborne and Conservative Mayor, Boris Johnson all belonged in the 1980s. In fact had police not interrupted him when they did, he had fully intended to swing on chandeliers, trash hotel rooms and debag other party members.

Elsewhere, the Bullingdon is overshadowing Conservative plans in Europe. It has been alleged that members of the ultra-nationalist Fatherland and Freedom party are having second thoughts about aligning themselves with the Conservatives after they learnt about the former antics of its high command.

Their leader Roberts Zile who has been a Tory guest in Manchester this week was appalled when confronted with the details of some of its episodes. The worst amongst these was the night when Bullingdon members smashed almost all the glass of the lights and 468 windows in Peckwater Quad of Christ Church, along with the blinds and doors of the building.

As Zile walked away from gathering journalists he muttered under his breath: "They sound like a bunch of Waffen-SS thugs to me."

Hurray for the public sector

A group of public sector workers have breathed a collective sigh of relief over the fact that they will escape Conservative, and most likely Labour plans for a pay freeze. Shadow Chancellor, George Osborne had suggested at the Conservative party conference that when it came to a public sector pay freeze, "We're all in this together." However it looks as though one group of public employees is likely to escape the freeze.

In autumn 2008, in the midst of the financial crisis, the Government took what ended up being a 70% stake in RBS. As market commentators claimed at the time, RBS was nationalised in all but name. Overnight a large number of 'big swinging dicks' became 'big public swinging dicks'. Apart from the fact that they now sounded rather like people who exposed themselves in public, it also meant that they were effectively public sector employees.

The implications of this were horrendous, not least because many of them thought that they would have to do things like join a union and fraternise with civil servants, council officials and social workers.

It then dawned on them that this government, and future governments might also consider themselves entitled to treat these 'big dicks' as subject to the same guidelines on pay as public employees - with all that that would then imply for pay restraint.

But they can rest easy. Chancellor Darling and Shadow Chancellor Osborne have no plans to restrict the pay of these particular public sector employees, even less actually to get involved in the pay negotiations themselves. We must remember, banks like RBS might well be nationalised in all but name but when it comes to pay that name makes a big swinging difference.