The Real Reasons for the "Low" Level of Unemployment

The "low" levels of unemployment in Britain are due to the following factors:

• 7 million people work for the state (ie the private sector supports them)


• Unemployment is regularly being redefined as "sickness"


• Large numbers of under 25's are now in full time "educashun", learning nothing useful at "pretend" universities. They will not be able to find work when they leave, but will be saddled with a lifetime of debt.

We are allowing ourselves to be deluded by a dishonest and untrustworthy government, and are sleepwalking towards disaster.

CIA Airlines

Click the image to see a larger version.

The Cricket Test Revisited

In the aftermath of the revelation that lthe recent London bomb attack was carried out by British Muslims, there has been an earnest volley of questions fired off at British Muslims by the media; as to what possessed these young men to murder their fellow countrymen.

Rather disturbingly many of those questioned, whilst saying that they do not approve of or condone murder, were quick to say that many Muslims are angry about British foreign policy. Whilst not explicitly saying that this anger should be an excuse for murder, those questioned imply that it may be a reason for the attack. This clutching at straws for a reason has provided a "shroud of respectability" to cover the decapitated corpses of the bombers.

This attempted "justification" for the bombing is absurd. There are many people in Britain who do not support our current foreign policy; ie they know that the Iraqi venture was criminally irresponsible, given the scandalous lack of thought and planning that had been devoted to the rebuilding of Iraq once the regime had been decapitated.

However, despite not approving of the British foreign policy, British citizens do not pack a rucksack with C4 and rush to the nearest tube station intent on murdering their fellow citizens.

I am afraid that the reason for the attack is far more simple, and basic, one of blind hatred for the West and its culture.

The bombers did not regard themselves as being either British, or indeed Western; they had rejected the culture and values of their birth country, in favour of their highly selective and morally reprehensible interpretation of the values and principles of Islam. In other words, they regarded their birth nation as the enemy.

How could such a state of affairs come to pass, whereby citizens born in Britain totally reject its values and democratic principles?

The answer, and the blame, lays full square at the door of the Muslim community in Britain. It is evident that the Muslim community, particularly in the North, has steadfastly refused to integrate into "mainstream" British society. They remain isolated and cut off; they appear as outsiders looking in, with suspicion and contempt for the British way of life.

This contempt is reinforced generation after generation, as the children born into the Muslim community are taught customs and practices (outwith religious ceremonies and worship) that are "not common practice" within the British way of life. In particular the role of women in Muslim society, as demonstrated by the dress code, is one area of significant difference. It has been argued by some, that the burqa is designed to show respect for women and the sanctity of the family; a cynic might ask why it is that men are not required to wear them as well. The emphasis within the Muslim community is on women being seen to be moral and modestly dressed at all times, Western women are regarded as little better than whores.

This contempt shown for the West is inevitably transmitted, in a closed community, from generation to generation. Western society is regarded as being morally decadent and degenerate. This is evidenced most aptly by the actions of the parents of one of the bombers. When, a few years ago, the teenager went through a rebellious period he was packed off to Pakistan; thus taking him away from the "corrupting influence" of the West. This action speaks volumes about what the Muslim community thinks of the West, and of British society.

Given the isolated and closed nature of many of the Muslim communities in Britain, it is hardly surprising that a generation is being brought up filled with hatred and contempt for their non Muslim contemporaries. Until the Muslim community recognises this failing and not seek "easy answers and excuses" for the bombing, such as British foreign policy, we will see more young men decapitate themselves in the name of a futile and evil cause.

Norman Tebbit was once mocked for his infamous "cricket test" analogy, whereby a citizen’s allegiance was tested by identifying which cricket team he supported. A similar, and very uncomfortable, question needs to be asked by British Muslims of themselves namely; which takes priority, Islam or Britain?

Where they answer in the former, it may be time for them to consider leaving. Where they answer in the latter, they must open up their communities; and accept that it is up to them to integrate with British society, not the other way around.

London

London has been a major city for over 2000 years.

It has survived fire, flood, plague, rioting, the Luftwaffe and the IRA.

Yesterday's attack by human scum will not destroy it, London will survive long after their intellectually and morally bankrupt theocracy has been consigned to the dustbin of history.

The EU Constitution - The Longest Suicide Note In History

Much has been written about the proposed EU constitution; there are those who claim that it is a blueprint for the future of the EU, and there are those who claim that it is the harbinger of a new European dark age.

Now that it has been placed into the deep freeze, ie killed, by the leaders of the EU I would like to add my "two cents" to the discussion. However, unlike other commentators, I will be brief and get to the heart of the matter.

The EU constitution was destined to fail for the following reasons:

• It is over 300 pages long, no voter (or indeed politician) on the planet could possibly understand it. The American Founding fathers wrote a constitution, which was a success, of a mere 20 pages.


• The US constitution begins "We the people..", the EU constitution begins "His majesty, the King of the Belgians..".


• Those countries that ratified the constitution did so via their own politicians, they did not trust their people to support it. Two of the three countries that trusted their people, France and the Netherlands, were given the two finger salute. In other words, the citizens of the EU do not want a European constitution.


• The US constitution was written with the support of the people, who had just fought the War of Independence. The EU constitution was written by an isolated political elite, who did not consult the people.


• The EU constitution attempts to impose an outdated model of state intervention on the citizens of the EU. Many of those citizens live in countries that have abandoned state intervention, in favour of free market economies. Until the member states of Europe agree as to whether they want a free market or outdated state intervention, the European project will go no where.

Any new attempt to revive a European constitution will have to take account of the above points, if it is to have any hope of success.

Make Poverty History

There is currently quite a media frenzy over the forthcoming concert in aid of the "Make Poverty History" campaign.

People are being encouraged to go along to the concert, march on the G8 summit at Gleneagles and to buy a white wristband.

The idea being that this will spur world leaders into canceling the debt owed by Africa, and to channel more aid to that region.

This is all very well and good. However, it is naive in the extreme:

• Canceling the debt will not serve the people of the region. At some stage they will need to borrow more money, those that have lent money in the past and have had that debt cancelled will not be inclined to lend more money in the future.



• Channeling large sums of money into Africa does the people of the region little good. The majority of that money goes straight into the pockets of the corrupt leaders of Africa, as they equip themselves with ever more luxurious palaces and larger fleets of presidential aircraft. Until Africa addresses its internal corruption, money sent there will never reach its target. In fact aid does nothing more than perpetuate the corruption.



• The purchase of the white wristband has turned into a nothing more than an egotistical fashion statement. People are using the band to pretend that they care, and to go along with the media frenzy that has accompanied this campaign.



• The white wristbands have been made by sweat shop labour in China, the purchase of these fashion items in fact does more harm than good; by lining the pockets of the sweat shop owners.

The solution to Africa's ills lies in the hands of Africans, not ours.

The Top Ten Reasons Why ID Cards Are Bollocks

I went down the pub last night, for a drink or two; and it is fair to say that, in the spirit of annoying our elected representatiaves, an elegant sufficiency of booze and cigarettes were consumed.

During last night’s celebrations, we mused on the top ten reasons why ID cards are bollocks (how sad is that?). Here is our top ten:

• ID cards are the tools of choice of dictators, during peacetime. Don’t take our word for it ask Churchill, Bush or Thatcher; all of whom have said the self same thing.



• ID cards can easily be forged, eg visit www.myoids.com



• The alleged purpose of ID cards is to prove someone’s identity, this can already be done with ease via eg; passports, NI numbers, driving licence or birth certificates to name but a few. Therefore ID cards are unnecessary.



• Foreigners passing through Britain do not have to hold ID cards.



• Proof of identity is no deterrent to terrorism, the determined "loon" is perfectly happy letting the world know his/her real name in a suicide bombing.



• Whilst we may be "waging war" against others, we are not "at war"; there is no external threat to the existence of this nation, aside from the internal threat posed by Labour.



• The cost of implementing, and managing, ID cards is prohibitive.



• The IT requirements, necessary to effectively manage the huge database envisaged by Labour, are not feasible. No IT project implemented by politicians, of any party, has ever worked properly or met budget.



• ID cards do not have to be carried by individuals, therefore their purpose is negated.



• ID cards will not be issued to every citizen of Britain until 2014. Labour claims that we are all in danger, yet she is taking 10 years to address that threat.

Do you not think that Labour is being a little slow here?

Could it be that we are actually not in as much danger as they would have us believe?

This list took us around 5 minutes of alcohol fuelled deliberations to create, ie it was not very difficult to pull Labour’s arguments to shreds.

If it is that easy for us "ordinary mortals" to pull her logic to threads; why does Labour still persist in her plans, and why has the "Leader" of the "Opposition" committed political suicide by supporting the introduction of ID cards?

Advice To Pope Benedict

The newly appointed Pope Benedict XVI faces the same challenge that any new CEO of a large failing multi national faces.

Namely, change management and scoring "quick wins" as he consolidates his position.

My advice to Benedict as to what his first "quick win" should be is simple; change the absurd catholic doctrine on contraception, and allow people to use condoms.

This one measure alone, will dramatically reduce the number of deaths in Africa from HIV; thereby ensuring that the Catholic church itself does not die out in this troubled continent.

The End of The Olympics

The Greek government has blamed the unchecked spending on the 2004 Olympics as being the reason for Greece's growing budget deficit.

Seemingly, because of accounting errors and "omissions", this deficit is likely to grow.

The latest figures from the EU show the deficit at 6.1% of gross domestic product, more than double the cap allowed by the EU.

Prime Minister Costas Karamanlis told the Parliament:

"The burdens we face from the past are very large..".

The cost of the 2004 Olympics is now being estimated at being $12BN. The Greek government has until the end of the month to explain to the EU how it will lower the deficit.

In a statement on the Finance Ministry website, the blame is pointed directly at PASOK, the socialist government that ruled Greece in the lead-up to the Olympics.

Additionally, there is the nagging question of what to do with the now redundant white elephants that made up the Olympic infrastructure. These are costing around $100M per annum just to maintain.

In respect of the breaching of the EU deficit rules, I would imagine that some form of political "fudge" will be made. The EU is notorious for allowing its members to break the rules, this will be no exception.

After all, if the then Greek government had been honest about the costs it would never have been allowed to join the Euro.

The EU will never admit to the fact that it had been conned.

With regard to the $12Bn cost, this is surely proof positive that the Olympics as a whole need to be totally reformed and scaled down.

No one in their right mind should even think of hosting them, if they are going to cost this much.

The trouble is that politicians' egos overrule common sense.

Maybe it is now time to abandon the Games, and for countries to spend their money on something more productive instead.

Don't Dilute The Brand

My professional body, the Institute of Chartered Accountants (ICAEW), will be launching yet another campaign to persuade its 126,000 members to approve a merger with two other accountancy bodies in the UK (CIPFA and CIMA).

The ICAEW ruling council argue that:

• The demographic skew of the ICAEW means that by 2023, half the membership will be over 55. The merger, in their view, will inject young blood into this dying organisation.



• The merged body will be larger, and better equipped to address the issues facing accountants in the 21st century.



• The merged body will be able to stand up to the UK’s other accountancy body, the ACCA. The ACCA is, for reasons that remain unclear, not participating in the merger talks.



• The ICAEW argue that we have been down this route so many times before, there have been several merger attempts in the past that have been vetoed by the membership, that it is now time to make up our minds once and for all; ie vote yes.

To quote Margaret Thatcher:

NO!
NO!
NO!
NO!

The arguments put forward represent the same, tired old mantra recited by previous ICAEW councils. They failed then, and they will fail again to convince the membership that a merger is a good idea.

We, the members of the ICAEW, do not want or need a merger of incompatible bodies. The merger will “dilute the brand value” of the FCA qualification.

Rather like a poorly conceived marriage; forcing unequal, ill suited partners together is a recipe for disaster.

The membership of the ICAEW have strived long and hard to achieve their qualifications; yet the council of the ICAEW seek to fritter away the labour of years, like a gambler “blowing his salary” at the dog track. To accept the merger would, in effect, consign the members’ efforts to the dustbin of history.

To hand over control of the governing council of the ICAEW to a new body, will denude the current membership of its right to veto who can become an accountant.

The council has wasted far too much time and money over the years, in trying to persuade the members to vote for a merger. The time has come to stop this disgraceful waste of members’ subscriptions, and stop the merger juggernaut once and for all in its tracks.

The argument about demographics is spurious, and indeed a sad indictment on the “management” by the council of the ICAEW. The decline in “youthful” members is surely down to the decline in the attractiveness of the qualification, and the out of date “fuddy duddy” image of the ICAEW. These issues should be directly addressed by the council, not swept under the carpet in the guise of a merger.

Diluting the brand is not the way to address the fundamental problems facing the ICAEW.

Vote no to the merger.

I have set up a website, dedicated to fighting the ICAEW merger proposal, it can be accessed via www.stopthemerger.org

Please tell your friends and colleagues about it.

1984 – Twenty Years On

In Orwell’s chilling vision of the future of Britain, 1984, the Ministry of Truth was responsible for propaganda. Orwell illustrates this by describing the release to the media of news about the statistics for shoe production. The statistics showed another increase in production.

However, as the protagonist Winston Smith mused, no one knew if the statistics related to left foot shoes, right foot shoes or were for pairs of shoes; indeed no one knew if the statistics were correct and, most damming of all, no one cared.

In 2004 we find ourselves to be in a very similar position. There is a rumour, “doing the rounds”, concerning the latest figures released by the government about the number of homeless people living on the streets of London.

It seems that a “directive” was issued to all the homeless care centres in London, instructing them to hold a party for the homeless of London on the same evening.

The homeless were duly “rounded up” to attend this very philanthropic event. A good time, we assume, was had by all.

On the face of it there is nothing sinister, or worrying, about giving a little warmth and cheer to those on the lowest end of the social ladder. However, there is one piece of information that needs to be added to this “Dickensian tale” of generosity.

The night of the party was the night that statisticians were walking the streets of London, counting the number of people living rough on the streets. These statistics would then be compared to the previous count, to see if the government had reached its target of reducing homelessness.

Needless to say, because a large number of homeless people were attending the special party they were not physically on the streets at the time of the count. Therefore, the statistics for the number of people living rough on the streets of London showed a marked improvement. The government had reached its target!

It seems that Orwell’s vision, although it may have missed the mark by twenty years, has become reality.

Bliar and his team of cronies in New Labour are so adept at lying, that they know that they can do it with impunity; the lies are no longer reported, even when they are no one seems to care.

The result is that Bliar no longer cares what lies are told; so long as it serves the cause of New Labour, and their desire to cling on to power at whatever the cost.

The Rotten Core at The Heart of Britain’s Financial System

It is often assumed by both the public and the politicians that, aside from the occasional scandal such as the Maxwell fraud, Britain’s financial system is well run and relatively honest.

After all, the UK has a plethora of rules, regulations and watchdogs (such as the FSA) governing; the stock market, financial advisers, pensions, auditors and all the other components that go to make up the UK’s financial system.

However, I am firmly of the opinion that this “confidence” is based on nothing more than hubris; and that, in fact, we live in country that has a fundamentally rotten financial system.

I would like to cite a number of examples that support my view:

The Endowment Mis-selling Scandal

The endowment mis-selling scandal, of the late eighties and nineties, readily springs to mind as one of the major failings of our financial system. As has been well documented, the life assurance companies used the bull market to create a totally unsuitable, and useless product, that they aggressively sold in the manner of TV sets and washing machines to over 8 million unsuspecting home owners.

The theory being that the bull market would create high yield returns on this product; that would not just pay off the mortgages of the hapless holders, but would also give rise to a modest surplus. Needless to say, what the life assurance companies did not bother to clearly tell people was that their commission charges would rob the product of much of its initial value, and that their projections for growth were totally unrealistic.

It now turns out that the 8 million holders, of these white elephants, are facing shortfalls of over £40BN. Although, in theory the policyholders can try to claim compensation, the life assurance companies are using every excuse in the book to slow the process down in order to avoid paying compensation. To date a paltry £1BN has been paid to those seeking redress.

The FSA, although they offer some fall back position for those refused compensation by the life assurance companies, do not have any intention of “rocking the boat” too hard. The FSA refuse to acknowledge the fact that the life assurance companies perpetrated the greatest financial scandal in the UK in living memory.

Pensions

Needless to say the results of the endowment policy mis-selling scandal have, coupled with the ill thought out tax raid by Gordon Brown on the pension’s industry, destroyed peoples’ confidence and willingness to invest in life assurance/pensions policies. The British people are facing a pension black hole that will leave the majority of pensioners, over the next few decades, living in penury. The politicians have failed the electorate, by allowing the electorate the self-delusion that they will forever have increasing standards of living without having to work harder. Instead of telling it straight, that people are going to have to work beyond what is considered to be the normal retirement age of 60-65, the government fiddles while “Rome burns”.

Corporate Governance

Corporate governance, so long thought of as being well established and effective in Britain, is failing lamentably. The boards of many companies are made up of directors and non-executive directors from a small clique of friends, and contacts in the City, who sit on each other’s boards. These people, instead of seeking to ensure effective and robust management in the interest of the shareholders, in fact more often than not sit passively; nodding through a host of half baked business plans, and the most greedy of executive remuneration packages.

I can certify that, more often than not, the primary qualification for being selected to serve as a non executive director (a position that in theory is meant to oversee the actions of the main board, so as to safeguard the interests of the shareholders) is that they have probably served in the same company before, or have certainly got “the right” connections. The concept of robust, proactive, independence doesn’t apply.

Directors of companies are routinely lambasted for awarding themselves, like pigs with their heads in the trough, inflation busting pay and pension packages. Politicians wring their hands, and shed crocodile tears, lamenting at this practice. However, once they have left ministerial office, each one of these “champions of the people” soon finds their way on to the boards of the companies that they were criticising.

Post Enron and Sarbanes Oxley the UK has, in its normal slow unhurried way, put together via the Higgs/Smith reports and the Combined Code a set of guidelines for companies and executives to follow with regard to corporate governance. However, it is not compulsory; all the company has to do, if it wishes to ignore these guidelines, is to write a few notes in the accounts.

Companies that are increasing their internal control and review procedures, not I may say because they want to, but because Sarb-Ox has forced them to; are complaining loudly about the increase in audit fees. It seems to me that it is not unreasonable that, because a greater amount of work is required to be done by the audit firms, they will have to charge more.

Audit Firms

Audit firms are not entirely immune from the rotten stench that emanates from the UK financial system. I well remember as a trainee auditor witnessing the booking of extra hours, that were not in fact worked, to the timesheet of a well known FTSE company; so that the audit fee could be justified to the FD of the client who, not unreasonably, had asked to see a breakdown of the hours worked.

A few years ago, audit firms, having felt the pressure of the market were forced to find ways to cut costs. Their brilliant and inspired solution was to create the concept of “risk management”, and audit only those areas that were deemed to be high risk; system compliance tests, which took up a lot of time, were thrown out of the window. The audit became a cheap and cheerful “risk management” exercise; whereby the real money was made by selling on added value services, such as consultancy.

In 2000 I attended, as an observer, an Arthur Andersen training course in Chicago; the mantra “forget about the audit, hard sell the high margin add ons” was pumped into the participants at every opportunity.

The consultancy advice usually given to the hapless client was to outsource mainstream functions such as; internal audit, tax and treasury to yes, you’ve guessed it the audit firms. I would say this, if Arthur Andersen had not been the first to “cop a fall” over lack of segregation of practices and excessive greed with its Enron and WorldCom debacle, then one of the other big firms probably would have done so.

Now they are forced to segregate services, and as such are reverting to the old “tick bash” routine in order to keep fee incomes high.

There is one other fly in their ointment. With the Enrons of this world came mega sized law suits, something that the accountancy firms and their insurance firms do not wish to pay for. This has caused something of a stand off with the government; Gordon Brown wishes for uncapped liability of audit firms, the audit firms are arguing for a cap. Their secret weapon is that if they don’t get a cap, they will dump certain “high risk” clients; this would leave the government with the responsibility for reviewing these companies’ books of account. In other words, the audit firms are holding the government to ransom; and trying to pass the risk of errors and omission in their working practices on to the shareholder and tax payer. Nice trick isn’t it?

The Stock Market

Those of you who are still not convinced that the financial system in the UK is rotten, should take a look at the stock market; and ask yourselves whether the ordinary investor, with a modest portfolio, can make money to the same degree as the big market players.

Monitor the swings and movements in the share price of any share, that you care to pick, over a few months; and watch the buys and sells preceding the announcement of any news that affects the share price, such as a take-over bid. In the majority of cases you will see that there are significant buys/sells (depending on the nature of the announcement), prior to the news being made public. That is not coincidence, but the result of the news being leaked to a few well connected “players” in the market.

When there is little news coming out about a company, more often than not the market makers will adjust the prices to shake out sellers or buyers; there is no reason for these price movements, other than to panic smaller holders into adjusting their portfolio which in turn generates commission for the market makers.

Consumer Debt

I will take as my final example the house price bubble that has grown over the last few years. As I write this, the effect of the recent interest rate rises by the Bank of England seem to be slowing the price rises down or indeed may even have pricked the bubble. The fact that this unsustainable rise could be allowed to continue for so long is damming in itself. However, the real issue is what has been sold on to the unsuspecting, and financially illiterate, consumers on the back of the bubble.

In the eighties, as already noted, we had endowment polices; now we have equity release schemes designed to consolidate credit card debt to encourage borrowers to borrow more, and spend on short term consumption. Borrowing long to spend short is recipe for disaster, as Weimar Germany and the world discovered to its cost in the 1920’s.

Loan companies have been allowed to aggressively target their advertisements at the most vulnerable, financially illiterate, people in society; without any regulatory interference. The interest rates on many of these debts bear no correlation to the risk profile of the loan. Instead they reflect the lending company’s “greed pricing grid”; which is the in house pricing model utilised by the lender to identify the maximum rate of interest that it can charge without losing customers to other lenders.

The result is that consumer debt in the UK now stands at over £1 trillion, which in my view is unsustainable. As house prices start to deflate many people will find themselves in a situation with negative equity; unable to move house, or restructure their finances. They will be saddled with an unsupportable level of debt for the rest of their lives.

Now, taking all of the above into consideration, do you feel that the financial system in the UK is well regulated and honest?