THE DEFICIT MUST BE TACKLED- BUT NOT BY US!

I have just watched the director of the CBI and some other business noteworthy on BBC Breakfast. I wasn't taking much notice until I heard them say that an incoming government must tackle the deficit immediately, not next year like New Labour wanted, but then said that spending by bodies such as the NHS should not be restricted because small business relies on this and many might go to the wall

So they want the deficit tackled but don't want public funding cut in a way that affects them. Just the sort of thinking that got us into this mess. And where do they think cuts will be made? Benefits and hike taxes, but only for the workforce?

Without a doubt we will be made to pay for the bankers mistakes. I'm not happy about it, but unless there are riots in the streets as we have seen in Greece, it's going to happen. But I am damned sure that the businesses and banks should pay proportionate to their income and maybe more as a financial penalty.

Bereaved Treated Badly by Banks

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/8311552.stm

 

It appears that bereaved partners, wives and husbands are having difficulty gaining access to funds when their spouse dies, even if they if there is a will in place. The banks, who one would think have had enough bad press, are holding back payments, claiming it is training its staff.

Well, do they put staff in charge of investment without proper training? How many staff are allowed to deal billions on the money market without proper training? So why is it that staff dealing with customers or their deceased family is in need of training? I'll hazard a guess. The longer they can hold on to your money, the more they can make from your hardship and distress.

The banks have learned nothing. Their sole aim is to make money. Any customer benefits derived from that aim are purely coincidental.

And don't forget, it is virtually impossible to do anything financial today without using a bank. From benefits payments to buying a house, a bank is involved somewhere.

More Power for the Bank of England?

George Osborne, Shadow Chancellor and MP for Tatton suggests that a Tory administration would give more powers to the Bank of England to oversee financial institutions. Mr. Osborne says "The tripartite system between the chancellor, the Bank of England and the FSA has simply failed."

That may be so, but giving more control to the Bank of England will in my view create more problems. The Bank of England is a financial institute and quite rightly is wholly or at least mainly concerned with financial affairs. (Quite advantageous to rich Tories, I suggest.)

Better the Bank of England should be given control over financial considerations, but where these financial considerations have an impact on the social structure and the poorer members of society who have no means of controlling the decisions that impact on them, a body of politicians (multi party), charitable institutions, sociologists and independent thinkers should be a party to those decisions with a power of veto if the majority disagree with the Bank of England.

Each member of this committee should show they have no personal interests in the policy and decisions of the Bank of England over and above those of the ordinary citizen. To declare an interest should not be enough.

I consider that this committee should consist of volunteers who will not benefit from being a committee member. No wages, no expenses, merely a commitment to fair play and policies to benefit the people, not the rich people.

To prevent the super rich commandeering the committee, being the only ones who can afford to do it for free a reasonable allowance could be allowable for those that can show genuine hardship.

And how about a sub-committee of us plebeians, elected to the job by local people to whom the committee report and take a remit?

This is my suggestion for a fair system of financial and economic decision making. The mechanics of how it might work must be decided by those more able than I in such matters.