Where to Now?

A burning question why was the focus on a politician who’s husband purchased porn movies when so many of the other expenses were just as bad from her and other MPs? Why should MPs have an expenses advantage over the private sector that produces the wealth for the country and pays for their stay? Why should they escape payments in kind. When will the myopic concepts of spin and political capital and personal gain be given up for the issues of real development and growth. State corruption levels have grown to a degree that would be envied by many  third world regimes. There is little doubt that the employment weight has substantially shifted towards dependency upon the state. This direction may secure the immediate futures of many and fulfil the short term goals of the current political class; however in the long run it will have a further reducing effect on productivity and capital growth. This dependency upon the state and it is increasing at a rapid rate will eliminate new money from the system reduce state revenue and will have a long lasting effect upon the infrastructure of the country. A country with an antiquated infrastructure will not be able to move goods, business people or globally ship its products to customers.

The City of London was a leading financial centre, that is now under a cloud due to state greed, inconsistent tax policies, individual management greed, bad management of the banking and financial product sectors, weak regulation based on the blind image of justice. The principal issues of importance in the City have been fees and bonuses. The government was happy to see those items promoted as it secured the future of politicians while in power and post power. We now see how this approach has a more dangerous backlash. Why should a titled person be offered the most senior banking job when the only criterion that is necessary is sound experience. The parliamentary hearing on the banking collapse highlighted the lack of experience within in the jobs for boys set. Many senior MPs have in the past joined fund management groups quite often with offshore registered funds. Such appointments are only for name prestige and access to contacts built through Westminster. It would be interesting to see if a real monetary advantage could be associated with such epensive appointments. My belief is that investment performance and profit for investors leading to earned gains for  management companies should be the main criteria.