You are here: Home » Comment »

The LIBORs we tell ourselves

June 28, 2012 3:39 pm

Author:

Tags:

Share this Article

The LIBOR scandal is being commented on as the scandal that will break the camel’s back. The one that will change the culture of the so-called “master’s of the universe” with their casino banking and the devastation they have wreaked on the whole world.

I’m sorry, but I don’t believe a word of it.

Bankers doing something incredibly corrupt seems to be a bit of a dog-bites-man sort of a story these days. What’s new? Why do we think they’ll learn this time, when essentially bankrupting the whole world doesn’t seem to have taught them a thing?

The money Barclays have been fined will go back into the FSA’s pot to be redistributed in savings to other banks who may well have been doing the same thing. Presumably, if they get caught and fined, the money from their fines will go back in savings to Barclays. The merry-go-round isn’t stopping. It’s not even slowing down. The bankers are just barely attempting to conceal their arrogant contempt for anyone who isn’t them with the very thin veil of a dropped bonus here or there.

There’ll be no real consequences for those involved. Not one’s they will actually feel. Bob Diamond might lose his job, but that will hardly dent his spending power. He’s already rinsed the country plenty – now he’ll get to retire on the spoils. Oh and he might have to personally answer some “serious questions” from the PM. Whoop-de-doo.

These are the people whose short-termism and greed have led to cuts that are making the hardest of lives even harder. But more importantly, this is the system that enabled them. It’s probably important to go after the individuals for their avarice and mendacity. But they will be replaced, and probably by people with even shorter memories and even fewer scruples.

It is only when there is genuine change to the system that we will be able to stop the greedy gambling with the lives of the needy. It is only through using a strong system of regulation, with real teeth, real sanctions and consequences both for individuals and institutions that anyone can hope to believe that things can and will change. That we can have a banking system that works for the many and not the few.

People are – at the same time – increasingly angry and increasingly resigned. Every new indignity that comes out of this financial crisis piles on the last, but eventually, what was once shocking is now the new normal. We’re used to being taken for a ride and we’re used to the Government being unwilling to stop it. Change needs to come soon or change may not come. If it’s not the Tories now (and it won’t be) it will have to be at the very top of Labour’s agenda. The first piece of legislation brought by a new Labour Government in 2015. To change not just the players but the game of banking.

People are right to direct some of their anger at Labour. Our hands are not clean. We need to convince people that lessons have not just been learned, but have been internalised and will be acted on.

There are real predators out there. Ed’s conference speech may have been criticised for its stark language, but there is nothing about the crisis we face and the utter inability of the people we once trusted implicitly to look after the money we earn to squander our money, our trust, our goodwill and our faith until there is nothing left but their mockery that is not stark.

Our solutions, that first piece of legislation will have to be truly bold. Not just politically daring, but a piece of legislation that will challenge a system that works internationally and stop abuses of our people in such a way that allows our citizens to continue to live productive lives in a global economy. That’s not a simple ask. It’s not a simple as nationalising this or regulating that. It will possibly be the most difficult and challenging task a modern Government can take up. I hope Labour have the guts for the fight. I think if we don’t we will be simply riding the fin de siècle wave as it comes crashing down.

But the fact that I think it will be worse if we don’t act does not mean I yet believe that we will. Action will take extreme bravery in the face of a virulent and incredibly powerful and well resourced opposition. Facing that down will take a strength and singularity of purpose. Do Labour have that? Are we ready for this fight? I don’t yet know.

Make me believe it, make the country believe it, I dare you Labour.

  • Dave Postles

    It’s an issue for everyone as an individual too.   You do have a choice: Coop; Triodos; credit unions; etc.  People can save themselves.  They are all protected  accounts (up to £85k).  If people don’t feel that you can do that after PPI, RBS underfunding its IT, etc etc, then they are being complicit.

    • treborc

       sadly at one time the Labour party actually told the DWP that people had to open bank accounts, and that saving accounts at the post office were not good enough, hence the post office now have a bank.

      I had no choice  but to op-en up an account to have all my benefits put in, and that came from our Dearly beloved Gordon Brown.

    • Holly

      I completely agree with you, and I am in the process of changing from the Halifax to a credit union.
      We are in a far more powerful position than any bank, and can send a clear message to the bankers that WE THE PEOPLE are not going to stand for their behaviour.

      We have been ripped off to the tune of millions, year after year, culminating in mis-selling scandals, bail-outs and bank charges.

      Waiting for a politician to ‘come up with something’ is never going to change the culture, but a MASS EXODUS from the main banks would give them something more,  to think about, than the next bonus.

      Personally I am no longer willing to be part of the greed culture that is holding everyone back…Time for the excuses to stop, and for the punter to move on.

      • treborc

         Nice to be able to do that of course, but millions of people have to use banks because we have been told to by a labour government, all benefits are now paid into bank accounts.

        • Holly

          They can also be paid in to building societies, other banks that are not as tainted and credit unions.
          I am just in the process of changing from the Halifax to the local Castle & Minster credit union that allows benefits to be paid in, gives a debit card and allows direct debits etc.
          Even the Post Office now has a bank facility.

          We no longer have to put up with the underhand, detrimental service we are currently offered by the ‘big’ banks.

          I WILL do this, you CAN do this, we SHOULD do this!
          At least enjoy the great ‘feeling’ it gives you, just by thinking about it.

          • Redshift

            I’m switching from Natwest to Co-op as soon as possible. 

  • treborc

    Does labour have any answers I suspect over the next few months the blame game will start, it was Thatcher, nope Blair, nope it was brown, nope it was Cameron, then they will all decide it was the sick the disabled and the work-less work shy they caused it.

    I suspect we will have everyone stick up for Diamond who should go and any other  person involved with this, but I bet people will say nope it cheaper to keep them because if they are sacked the redundancy  payments will be massive.

    But people who sat in front of the TV years ago listening to bankers profits go through the roof and asked how why, now know.

    I suspect they will now say they need to stop welfare altogether now.

    • JoeDM

       The events took place between 2005 and 2009.     Diamond was not in charge of Barclays at the time.

      • Dave Postles

         O.k., so Varley was at the head of Barclays, but Diamond responsible for the division (Barclays Capital) at the time.

        • treborc

           They are all to blame for one of the scandals anyway.

          King said to day the old banking system of how rates were set, will have to change to bring back banking creditability.

    • Holly

      I have just had the pleasure of hearing Miliband telling us how ‘Bob Diamond should go, but it is up to the shareholders’, of course. 
      He then went on to say that it is not right that the people who were around when this was going on can possibly stay in their posts.
      Does he think about what he is saying?Does he know where his shadow chancellor was when this was going on, or was he out making the tea?The vast majority of us do know where the pair of them were when all this was going on, and hearing him come out with rage inducing, foolish stuff keeps him in the frameWhy does he persist in saying such stupid stuff, while trying to come across as a future PM in waiting, squeaky clean, and thinks he can’t be tarred with the same brush as others who were around when the scams were going on.The man is either thick, or as I suspect, gunning for Balls.

  • John Dore

    If this wretched government fail to act with the full force of the law their obvious priorities will be laid bare for all to see.

    • JoeDM

      The more concerning issue is that Barclays alone cannot manipulate LIBOR. To put it simply,  a LIBOR rate is set by removing the top 2 and bottom 2 rates and then averaging the remaining.  The only way this can be rigged is through a price ring or cartel.

      • John Dore

        So are you saying they were all involved? Is this the government trying to hush it up to protect the confidence in the city? Will this come back and explode in sham-erons face:

        • Holly

          This will undoubtedly come back and explode in the customers faces.
          Higher charges to get back some losses, whether in capital held or bonuses….We will be the one’s with the face full.

          You are making the same mistake as the politicians….This is NOT about politicians, or which party/politician is to blame, it is about US and what WE do to finally rid ourselves of a banking system that continually treats us like mugs, gives out huge, unearned bonuses, and pays unmerited salaries.

          Placard waving, and window smashing. Sit down protests, and millions marching will do nothing to change the way banks are run, but withdrawing our custom definitely would.

          Oh and just as a gentle reminder. This happened between 2006 up to the banking collapse, and I recall Labour being in government during that period..So whatever political party is in government makes no difference when the problem is the attitude, structure and behaviour of a company…Oh and the complicity of their customers.

    • Holly

      Like wise, if the public fail to act, and continue to bank with the one’s who do all these shifty dealings, our ‘priorities’ will be laid bare for every banker to see…Just how gullible, prepared to cough up whatever they demand from us, and compliant we are.

      We can stop waiting/expecting someone else to ‘sort it’ and sort it ourselves.

      The truth is the banks are NEVER going to stop ripping us off, until we punters FORCE them to.

  • Derek

    Osborne was strong on blaming Labour this afternoon but that was New Labour – that Blair led right leaning splinter group. Miliband needs to distance himself but unfortunately he still has Balls hanging around – perhaps he shoud cut his Balls off and part company with the tainted past.

    Now the Tories are speaking about closing the stable door after the horses have bolted. The usual strong rhetoric but remember those perpetrating these crimes are probably Tory voters. They believe firmly in the villainous free market economy. They detest any idea of state run institutions.

    We have only ourselves to blame for electing middle and right wing governments who fear the arkets more than the electorate. If Labour would actually stand up for the power of the state, and the state is each one of us normal working class people, they might be surprised at hw much support they may get.

    • JoeDM

       Yep.   It was Labour’s reforms that destroyed the old and proven regulatory system that had stood the test of time (and  Barings !!!).  

      Gordon Brown’s reforms introduced ‘light touch’ regulation and look where it got us.

      • Dave Postles

         BBA and Thomson Reuters have been responsible for Libor for at least 26 years.

      • Dave Postles

         Euribor manipulation?  PPI? Failure to invest in RBS IT infrastructure?  Whatever Labour did about the regulatory framework (and who knows what King would have done?), it all in the end derives from gross moral turpitude inside City firms and their own lack of internal supervision (or worse). 

    • AlanGiles

      You make an excellent point, Derek, not just Balls, either: how can Labour say they have “moved on”/”drawn a line”/”learned lessons” (deleted cliche’ to taste) while you still have, sitting in shadow cabinet, the old waxworks who are so closely identified with the past?. Yvette Cooper, Liam Byrne, Ivan Lewis.

      Ed Miliband should really have a good clear out – a major reshuffle and before the summer recess – but will he?. No of course he won’t :-(

      • treborc

        Balls has a power base, the old Brownites, then you have the new labour bunch looking after Byrne hence he did not get moved last time.

        Miliband has to take it slow and he has to have somebody who knows what they are doing to replace these people, I would say right now none of the new intake of MP’s would be able to take on the Ball’s roll .

        It will take time.

      • Holly

        Again I argue that WE THE PEOPLE are in charge of who sits in parliament.

        Labour voters have some very difficult decisions to make, and are the only people who can reject those you mention. 
        Hard as it may be to do, it has to be done,. At least once in a while anyway.
        In 1997 I was so disgusted at the behaviour & arrogance of some Tory bods I did what I had to do….Take their power away from them!
        I could not stomach the thought of some of them returning to government and withheld my vote.
        Now some Labour bods NEED the same treatment, and should not have to wait for, or expect, another politician to do it for us.

        Miliband knows what would happen if he moved Balls or Coop from cabinet, but it would go a long, long way with the voter if he did.

        Darling faced down ‘the forces of hell’ that were unleashed, when he told us the truth about how dire the crash was going to be, and I respect him for it.
        Is Miliband of the same calibre, or is he the same calibre as Balls…Power at any cost?
        I fear the latter is the case.

        Miliband is good at telling us what we are all thinking, but he was slap bang in the middle of it while it was happening, THEN he goes on to make Ed Balls shadow chancellor.
        Even after Labour were soundly rejected, because of the economic mess, he puts the chief ‘mess creator’ in cabinet as shadow chancellor.
        Why on earth would he do that?

        It is down to Labour voters to get rid of tarnished/bad Labour MP’s, NOT just the leader.

        • Alan Giles

          If I had had my way people like Blears, Byrne, McNulty – the list is so long  it would take a long time – would have not  been allowed to stand for re-election in 2010. McNulty, like Jackie Smith was unsuccesful, and Purnell with his phoney “cleaning expenses” bill stood down.

          Anyone caught up in the expenses scandal in my view was irreparably damaged, especially if – like Blears and Byrne – they were hypocritical enough to complain about “benefit scorungers”.

          The trouble is, when you voice your distaste in that way, you get people on LL saying “you’re a Tory”, even though I was equally contemptous of Tory expenses swindlers too.

          There are those sitting in Westminster in all parties who have proven that they cannot be trusted. Certainly I wouldn’t have Byrne, Cooper and Balls in my shadow cabinet,they abused the system big time. Others in the shadow cabinet Twigg for example) is just downright incompetent. There are also many dishonest and/or incompetent government members in the coalition as well.

  • http://twitter.com/bencobley Ben Cobley

    The fact that these fines effectively get paid to other banks shows how completely the financial industry and the people within it have taken over the country, ironically in the name of “free” markets. There is a good word for the sort of power structure we have: oligarchy. Democracy it is not.

  • jaime taurosangastre candelas

    The argument you make has emotional resonance, but the problem is that the reality of adopting the cure you suggest would cripple the country in the short and medium term, even if after very many years a more balanced economy would emerge.

    The Financial sector in the UK is really a global market that happens for reasons of history (and that we are not in the Eurozone, and that we’ve got convenient time differences to other capitals).  It makes up 10% of the UK’s GDP, money that sticks to British hands and is paid in taxes as it makes its’ way from Tokyo to New York.It contributes more than any other sector of the economy in taxes.  If you were to take that away by downsizing the sector, our existing deficit would completely balloon.  So, killing off the financial sector deflates GDP by towards 10%, and reduces national revenues by about 10%. These reductions would be repeated year on year for quite some time. The Financial sector also employs around 1 million people, not just in London but in Leeds and Edinburgh. Another million unemployed.

    Those are facts.  How do we get from the current position to a sustainable long-term position without committing national financial suicide?

    • chriscook

      @google-285908a073bfe41d26f162a0d9780abd:disqus 

      To the extent that the City in its current largely ‘socially useless’ mode provides financial services to the UK then its loss would actually be a net gain to the economy. 

      But  since a large part of its profits come from sucking wealth from other nations then yes, you could remove most of it and produce a  net loss to the UK but there would be a substantial net gain to the world at large.

      Similarly – in Spades – with Wall Street.

      The good news is that the socially useless business model of the banks is terminally broken, and the system is rapidly evolving.

      This evolution to networked markets represents both a threat and an opportunity to the City and Wall Street, and I believe that the City is flexible enough to evolve, survive and prosper while Wall Street will – relatively – wither on the vine. 

      The outcome will be a massive cull of the majority of largely parasitic and useless value extracting  financiers leaving a rump of imaginative and ethical professionals sharing in the value they assist in creating.

      • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_ZPXYLRVP4XOIGGDJWAL6HUO7U4 David

        @chriscook:disqus  I know this is a personal thesis of yours and one that we have discussed many times, but I’m intrigued how you square the fact that the most wealthy and prosperous nations all have thriving banking sectors, and many of the impoverished nations of the world have much less developed banking systems?  I understand that correlation is not causation, but it does not appear to support your bold assertion that they are, and presumably have been for some time, draining value from the economy.

        • chriscook

          @yahoo-ZPXYLRVP4XOIGGDJWAL6HUO7U4:disqus 

          Thriving? You are having me on. 

          Yes, indeed the parasitic banking system thrived while its host prospered, but it has now pretty much killed its host.

          The third world is developing financial systems at a phenomenal rate, but these have very little need for banks.  It is little appreciated but billions of the poorest people in the world now have a linked common currency – air time – and a common accounting system already exists.

          There is a role for banking as a service and profession, but none whatever for banking intermediaries.

          Moreover this evolution to service provision is already under way – firstly as banks foisted market risk on their ‘muppet’ customers by flogging funds to them.

          The simple reason is that to operate as a service provider you need minimal financial capital.

          • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_ZPXYLRVP4XOIGGDJWAL6HUO7U4 David

            @chriscook:disqus I am as guilty of hyperbole as the next person, and perhaps my post above is an example of that, but I hardly think the economic condition of the UK is quite as flat-lined, nor as comparable to economies in emerging nations, as you appear to be suggesting.

            Regarding air time as a currency: I imagine you are referring to systems such as M-Pesa, with which I am very familiar, and the fact that, apparently, 25% of Kenyan GDP flows via this phone-banking system, but don’t mistake it as not a banking product.  Safaricom may operate it, but M-Pesa is a branchless banking system working (and regulated) on pretty much the same basis as financial entities around the world.

            Banking intermediaries: I’m intrigued to know exactly who you mean there: insurance? inter-dealer brokers?

          • chriscook

            @yahoo-ZPXYLRVP4XOIGGDJWAL6HUO7U4:disqus 

            I am not in fact referring to mobile payments of conventional currency using systems such as those which you mention.

            I am referring to the potential for systems like

            http://www.jana.com

            which provide rewards in airtime to maybe 2 billion of the poorest people in the world through innovative use of messaging protocols and an accounting system.

             It would be quite straightforward to link such phones to (say) a pool of stored energy (oil and gasoline in tank, or gas reserves) via units redeemable in payment for something universally valuable, rather than a worthless promissory note redeemable against……errr….another promissory note.

            In fact that is the very reason why I am in Tehran at the moment and a regional currency based on that very proposition.

            Banking functions are necessary, but banks are no longer necessary to carry out these functions if you use the correct architecture.

        • Peter Barnard

          I would also look at other features of mature western democracies, David, such as rule of law, property rights, a highly-developed law of contract ultimately enforceable at law, democracy, stable government (whatever the political colour), political maturity and well-established civil institutions.

          Remember that in the post-war “golden age,” material prosperity increased at an unprecedented rate and derivatives were non-existent. For instance, my Annual Abstract of Statistics for 1965 tells me that in 1954 the gross national product of the insurance, banking and finance (including real estate) sector was just £453 million out of a GNP of £15,937 million : 2.8% ; by 1964, the sector generated 3.3% of GNP.

          The fancy financial products that the sector has generated over the last twenty-five years or so should be prohibited. These products, as we have seen, are extremely damaging to the common wealth and are directly responsible for our present economic predicament.

          I accept that prohibition can’t be introduced immediately but Labour should state, as policy, that it will occur in five years time to allow unwinding of present positions. For those who say that they will take their “wealth generating business” overseas, my answer would be, “I’m sure you know where Heathrow airport is.”

          • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_ZPXYLRVP4XOIGGDJWAL6HUO7U4 David

            I’m not sure if there is a relevance to using GNP rather than GDP, but as you know the difference is typically relatively modest.  I would point out that the “earnings” of the financial sector is not the same as it’s “impact”: the UK has been using financial products to fight wars, colonise continents and build industry for centuries: and this is not captured in the modest statistics you mention.

            Also I wonder if you would agree with my view that there is a huge dichotomy in, on the one hand, lauding the benefits of the rule of law and stability in a developed economy, and on the other making it a stated aim to change the law in such a way that, from our current position, would introduce a tidal wave of instability?

            For example how many banks would require people to repay their mortgages (or if not, then have to ramp up their charged interest rates dramatically – to disastrous effect) if they could no longer use the financial markets to leverage their capital base?  And this doesn’t even begin to consider the impact on pension schemes.

            I would argue that five years is simply not enough to allow a reversal of the current position, and it might even be possible that such a change may not be possible over any reasonable timeframe without reducing asset valuations of voters in real terms dramatically, leaving a trail of bankruptcies, negative equity, and misery in its wake.

            I’d be more worried about the rioting than of businesses leaving at that point…

          • Peter Barnard

            David, if that’s the case then truly we have the finance tail wagging the productive sector dog. My point was, essentially, that we achieved a high rate of economic growth without any of the bells and whistles in finance.

            Especially so in house purchase in the mid-1960s, when 200,000+ private sector houses a year were purchased by a million Mr & Mrs Smiths living in countless Acacia Avenues. The finance came from dull and boring building societies and if you’d mentioned the word “derivative” to a high street building society manager in 1965, he would have had to look in his dictionary to find out what you were talking about.

            To my mind, it is somewhat illogical for finance to grow faster than the rest of the economy. Finance is there to serve the real producers of goods and services in the rest of the economy and its primary function is to act as a middleman between those who have cash to invest and those who wish to borrow to invest in a capital asset.

            It also had a secondary function to act as an after-market, eg when Aunt Agatha popped her clogs and some shares had to be sold, or investors just changed their mind.

            It is the secondary function that we now see dominant. Although there is a certain amount of social usefulness in being able to dispose of Aunt Agatha’s shares and to accommodate changes of mind, the actual wealth creation in secondary trading is zero. However, as Charlie what’s his name (W Buffet’s right hand man) remarked – the croupier always takes his cut.
             
            Of course, the finance function is necessary to the common wealth, although I’m not sure that “impact” is actually measurable. The “impact” is in the actual utility provided by a facility, be it an extra terminal at Heathrow or new much-improved hairdriers at a ladies’ hairdresser.
             

      • jaime taurosangastre candelas

        To Chris Cook,

        I am not sure if we are in agreement or not on this.  All I am saying is that it currently provides about 10% of the GDP and revenues that the Government use to pay for things like hospitals and schools, and if that were to be suddenly removed, then we have a practical problem for as long as it takes to replace that lost GDP and revenue.

        I am ambivalent about the principle of having a financial sector – it is neither good nor bad by itself as an existence.  Money exists and moves around the world, and institutions need to be in existence to facilitate this.  In practice, the UK financial sector appears to be too large so unbalances the national economy, and it appears to be run like a wild west saloon bar with a gunfight going on and the population being hit by the bullets, so it must be changed if only to protect the rest of us.

        Your thoughts seem to come from a theoretical perspective, mine from a more practical perspective.  Perhaps we also do not agree on the timelines or approach to the cure, even if we agree a cure needs to be made.

        But it would be wrong to suddenly remove this contribution to the economy without having a replacement in place, which is what I feel that some would do.  That is short-sighted, unless the proposer also understands that such a rapid removal of revenue from the country would make the austerity in Spain and Greece seem like the picnic.

  • Dave Postles

    What is amazing here is how the trolls are out trying to blame politicians for this delinquency.  Libor is the province entirely of the BBA and has been for 26 years.  The group of bankers reviewing the process this year decided not to change the method of establishing Libor.   Barclays had a telephone conversation with the BoE, not the FSA.  Other banks than Barclays are under investigation.  Euribor was manipulated as well.  The fault lies entirely with gross moral dereliction inside the City firms. 

    • jaime taurosangastre candelas

      It seems that the Chairman of Barclays (Mr Marcus Agius) is also the Chairman of the British Bankers’ Association (BBA).  See http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/newsbysector/banksandfinance/9363421/Bob-Diamond-Barclays-falsified-Libor-to-protect-bank-during-financial-crisis.html

      So he is trying to defend his bank, and also trying to defend a system which may involve denying that all of the other banks were doing the same in collusion.

      This smells like rotting fish to me.  But Emma is correct in her first paragraph – should we be surprised?

      The financial sector should have been more effectively regulated 50 years ago, not with the ever looser regulation that both main political parties have competed to deliver in that period.

      For once, Lenin was right.  We have sold to ourselves the rope with which we shall be hanged, if not by communists, but by speculators.

    • treborc

       The real problem is of course we all saw for ourselves labour sitting on it’s backside when the housing bubble exploded, we saw labour state that the left did not like people getting rich, when Bankers  made millions off bonus payments , what with banking profits going throught the roof. Yet nobody and I mean nobody said hold on a minute how is this happening, all you had was Brown  saying do more it’s working the thrid way has ended boom and bust.

      I do blame the politicians, the bank of England for sitting on it’s fat ass, and anyone else who should have been watching these people.

      After all labour spent in one year £139 million on special advisor’s

  • AlanGiles

    Bob Diamond has been busy telling the media that he has no intention of resigning. I think events, dear boy, events, might make this boast look quite hollow within a week or so, but in all seriousness, why is it that, banker or  politician, they don’t have the self respect to do the decent thing. It always reminds you of a witness in a court case who is forced to have the truth dragged out of him, and tries to delay the inevitable by answering in a low voice. They are asked to repeat their answer and their embarrassment is all the more obvious.

    When you are the head of an organisation, be it Barclays or a smaller company, you have to take ultimate responsibility for the actions of your employees – whether Diamond knew or not what was going on, he owes it to everybody – including himself – to resign. Hanging on like dirty glue makes you look even more sordid.

    • treborc

       But we know what he is doing, he is saying look you want me to go you make it worth my while, we have seen it before and I suspect the cheque book redundancy payment will ensure he can but a Caribbean island somewhere to retire.

  • Barry Edwards

    My other half suggested we brought back the stocks for bankers.

  • hp

    So exactly why did JP Morgan start handing money to Tony Blair when he left office? 

  • H Flinging

    Perhaps a Maoist China approach to this problem might focus a few minds if not consciences should the latter exist in the sociopaths’ make-up(s)?

    • Dave Postles

       Simon Baron-Cohen, Zero Degrees of Empathy (2012).

  • Alan Giles

Latest

  • Comment The culture of high risk credit is being exploited by betting shops

    The culture of high risk credit is being exploited by betting shops

    By Matthew Zarb-Cousin

    Since the financial crisis, the perfect storm of recession and banks restricting access to credit has led to the rise of payday lenders. Our high streets are slowly deteriorating from the vibrant, diverse places they once were into an abyss of pawnbrokers, payday loan shops and bookies. The three feed off of each other, targeting some of our most deprived areas and perpetuating a cycle of despair driven by the need for extra income. Research carried out by Geofutures found [...]

    Read more →
  • Comment Should people be asked if they are party supporters when they register to vote?

    Should people be asked if they are party supporters when they register to vote?

    Chris Clark and Rav Seeruthun on a small change that if adopted, would free activists to spend more time on community work Every year at party conferences we hear professional politicians eulogise hard-working party volunteers. And there’s no activity more often evoked than that of ‘knocking on doors’. It’s a common delusion that the purpose of doorstep canvassing is to ‘persuade’ voters. Having taken part in our fair share of Labour canvassing sessions, we’ve both had the dispiriting experience of [...]

    Read more →
  • Europe Featured You can always rely on the Conservatives to ignore the public when it comes to Europe

    You can always rely on the Conservatives to ignore the public when it comes to Europe

    By Douglas Alexander

    Europe is not often the issue which comes top of people’s concerns on the doorstep. Nor do opinion polls suggest that Europe is a priority for voters when compared to issues like the economy or jobs. But you can always rely on the Conservatives to ignore the public when it comes to Europe. This week saw over a hundred Conservative MPs rebel and vote against their own Queens Speech. They were angry that it hadn’t included a bill which would [...]

    Read more →
  • News Seats and Selections Vicky Foxcroft selected as Labour’s PPC for Lewisham Deptford

    Vicky Foxcroft selected as Labour’s PPC for Lewisham Deptford

    Vicky Foxcroft has been selected by Lewisham Deptford CLP as the party’s candidate for 2015 at a selection meeting this afternoon. Here’s a brief biography: Vicky grew up in the North West in a single parent household, and was the first person in her family to go to university. She has held many positions in the party including Chair of Labour Students, has sat on the National Policy Forum and is currently a local councillor and is Chair of Lewisham [...]

    Read more →
  • Comment Labour’s future schools policy: why accountability matters

    Labour’s future schools policy: why accountability matters

    By Mike Ion

    Stephen Twigg, Labour’s Shadow Education Secretary is one of the more thoughtful and pragmatic individuals to hold this vitally important brief for some time. To his credit Stephen has been out and about these past two years listening to pupils, teachers, parents and governors and finding out more about the challenges they face on a day-to-day basis. In addition Stephen has been looking closely at some local, regional, national and international programmes that have had a demonstrable impact in raising [...]

    Read more →