Realism

On the eve of the General Election, I offer some disjointed remarks.

Have any of the political parties actually dealt with reality? I doubt it, but I do not know. The whole thing is a miasma. Nicola Sturgeon seems to have made a big impact as a politician, but what has she contributed? What has she had to say about North Sea oil in Scottish waters? What has she said about Icelandic fishing fleets? What has she said about the balance between Scottish business and earnings of workers? What has she said about Scottish interests and the UN, the WHO, the EU, and all the other supranational bodies? It would be a reasonable question to ask: “WHAT DOES SHE, AS THE REPRESENTATIVE OF THE SCOTTISH PEOPLE, WANT?” During the referendum for Scottish independence, I do not recall anything solid or specific about what the Nationalists wanted. It seemed to be about political control and nothing but political control. There seemed to be nothing ‘realistic’ about it.

And so, as I see it, the whole GE campaign has been about miasmas – pretences. What is the reality about the economy? The reality is that the economy is chaotic. Has the British economy been the best performing in Europe? Maybe, but I suspect that the statement concerns only the performance of currencies and not actual real events.

I mean, what could be more comical than an unelected group of aristocratic bureaucrats handing out grants to organisations of which the approve? Sure, there are supposed to be ‘rules’ and sometimes groups such as UKIP can get a grant, but you can bet a pound to a penny that most grants go to EU supporters.

Does anyone really know how the banking crisis came about? Does anyone really know why some big banks needed to be bailed out? The Bank called HBOS was almost bankrupt, and yet the Lloyds TSB Group amalgamated by a ‘reverse take over’ with HBOS. No proper examination of the factors was done. Everything was rushed. At the time, the LLoyds TSB Group had little or no exposure to the debt crisis.

WHAT HAPPENED? It seems that Gordon Brown was involved in some way, although nothing is concrete, of course.

What actually happened was that the Lloyds TSB group, with no debt exposure, amalgamated with HBOS, without knowing with any precision how bad the debt of HBOS was, and its share value collapsed, once the extent of the HBOS debt was exposed. Lloyds TSB did not do proper ‘due diligence’; political pressure and political acquiescence by the board of Lloyds TSB resulted in the theft of value of the assets of many, many, many Lloyds TSB shareholders, of which I am one. An organisation appeared, asking me to pay money in order to sue the board. What would be the point? The Chairman who caved in to the demands of Gordon Brown had already been ousted along with other members of the board and the Chief Exec. Who is there to sue, and what for?

I remember the detail a little. I remember a circular which described the amalgamation and the Board of Director’s recommendation to accept the amalgamation. I reckoned that, at the time, I was not sufficiently aware of the factors and so did not vote. How could I?

Was I remiss in not voting? Hardly.

And so we might reasonably suggest that the reality is that the vast majority of the people should not vote.

Is that a terrible thing to say?

I am not advocating it, but people might like to view this post from Chris Snowden:

http://www.iea.org.uk/blog/the-opportunity-cost-of-explaining-opportunity-costs

There is a serious point. Politicians like Cameron, Miliband and Clegg – the elite – are always desperate that people vote. Why? Imagine that only, say, 10% of THE PEOPLE voted in a GE. What sort of mandate would that provide to the winner? Hardly any at all, I would suggest.

—–

There is a lot to be said for annual revisions of the mandate of MPs. In today’s communication age, it would not be difficult to organise.

===

And so we wait and see. Tomorrow should be fun.

Advertisements

%d bloggers like this: