No this isn't a story about over-sexed socialists (unless you maybe include Rev. Paul Flowers) but please do read on.
Ed Miliband, the figure-head leader of the socialists in the UK, the real leader is union boss, Len McCluskey, has indicated that Labour would try to create two new large banks in the UK, so as to promote 'competition.
Now think about that. We already have 5 big banks in the UK. We also have building societies (akin to US savings and loans/credit unions). Indeed, two of these banks are largely owned by the UK people. The 'people' own more than 80% of Royal Bank of Scotland.
It is entirely unclear what benefits this extra competition will bring. We now know that Miliband's words have cost the UK taxpayers more than £ billion from the reduction in share prices seen for RBS and LloydsTSB.
Consider also, what happened last time Labour were in power. This champion of greater competition, then forced through the takeover of the HBOS banking group by LloydsTSB, thereby reducing the number of banking chains!
Consider also, the Labour party's closest banking ally - the Cooperative Bank. This bank had Rev. Paul Flowers appointed as its chairman, under Labour's 'light touch' regulatory regime. This is the same Rev. Paul Flowers that is accused of hiring rent boys and using illegal drugs, including Ketamine. The same Rev. Paul Flowers who is accused of abusing his position as a church minister to allegedly defraud a charity. Oh yes, and the same Rev. Paul Flowers who took the Co-Op bank to the brink of bankruptcy! In the last action, he perhaps proved that he was as qualified as other leading bankers, at least!
So Labour, whose record with banks is, shall we say, patchy, wants to interfere and create competition?
Since when has Labour been so keen on competition? When did they become the champions of consumer choice? I ask because there seem to be some areas for which Labour is absolutely opposed to promoting competition. These are not areas where the incumbents are actually performing well. Indeed, quite the opposite.
These areas? Well, the NHS and Education, to name just two.
With the NHS, the UK effectively has a monopoly supplier of health care that is controlled by its provider union personnel. Can you imagine the uproar that would have followed, if a private health supplier had treated patients the way that the 'envy of the world' NHS treated people at Mid Staffs and other scandal-riddled hospitals? Does anyone think that Andy Burnham, the Labour minister in charge at the time of these scandals, who tried to hide the truth, would remain in the role, if he were in a private company? Hundreds of people died unnecessarily and in appalling conditions when their very lives were entrusted to this monopoly provider but, according to Labour, that's okay.
Look also at education, where Labour, again repaying the debts to its union paymasters, consistently opposes any and all reform. Here the Conservatives have pushed ahead with supporting the establishment of independent schools but much still needs to be done and Labour, and its local authority allies and other members of the payroll electorate, will continue to oppose much needed reform. As with health, Britain's education system is failing as successive governments have failed to address the core issues because they have focused on 'politically correct' solutions and ignored real world problems.
Apparently, Labour want to see more choice on the high street but I seriously wonder how many people still rely on physical branches and how many use online banking? When was the last time you went into a bank?
Anyway, usual stuff from Miliband and his socialists. The 'cost of living crisis' is seen to be being solved, as real wages start to exceed prices and so it is time for another soundbite! Worryingly, Labour still have a chance that they might be in charge of the UK economy, after the next election. Miliband the banker - be afraid, very afraid. Remember who ran the economy alongside the disappeared Gordon Brown?
Ed Miliband, the figure-head leader of the socialists in the UK, the real leader is union boss, Len McCluskey, has indicated that Labour would try to create two new large banks in the UK, so as to promote 'competition.
Now think about that. We already have 5 big banks in the UK. We also have building societies (akin to US savings and loans/credit unions). Indeed, two of these banks are largely owned by the UK people. The 'people' own more than 80% of Royal Bank of Scotland.
It is entirely unclear what benefits this extra competition will bring. We now know that Miliband's words have cost the UK taxpayers more than £ billion from the reduction in share prices seen for RBS and LloydsTSB.
Consider also, what happened last time Labour were in power. This champion of greater competition, then forced through the takeover of the HBOS banking group by LloydsTSB, thereby reducing the number of banking chains!
Consider also, the Labour party's closest banking ally - the Cooperative Bank. This bank had Rev. Paul Flowers appointed as its chairman, under Labour's 'light touch' regulatory regime. This is the same Rev. Paul Flowers that is accused of hiring rent boys and using illegal drugs, including Ketamine. The same Rev. Paul Flowers who is accused of abusing his position as a church minister to allegedly defraud a charity. Oh yes, and the same Rev. Paul Flowers who took the Co-Op bank to the brink of bankruptcy! In the last action, he perhaps proved that he was as qualified as other leading bankers, at least!
So Labour, whose record with banks is, shall we say, patchy, wants to interfere and create competition?
Since when has Labour been so keen on competition? When did they become the champions of consumer choice? I ask because there seem to be some areas for which Labour is absolutely opposed to promoting competition. These are not areas where the incumbents are actually performing well. Indeed, quite the opposite.
These areas? Well, the NHS and Education, to name just two.
With the NHS, the UK effectively has a monopoly supplier of health care that is controlled by its provider union personnel. Can you imagine the uproar that would have followed, if a private health supplier had treated patients the way that the 'envy of the world' NHS treated people at Mid Staffs and other scandal-riddled hospitals? Does anyone think that Andy Burnham, the Labour minister in charge at the time of these scandals, who tried to hide the truth, would remain in the role, if he were in a private company? Hundreds of people died unnecessarily and in appalling conditions when their very lives were entrusted to this monopoly provider but, according to Labour, that's okay.
Look also at education, where Labour, again repaying the debts to its union paymasters, consistently opposes any and all reform. Here the Conservatives have pushed ahead with supporting the establishment of independent schools but much still needs to be done and Labour, and its local authority allies and other members of the payroll electorate, will continue to oppose much needed reform. As with health, Britain's education system is failing as successive governments have failed to address the core issues because they have focused on 'politically correct' solutions and ignored real world problems.
Apparently, Labour want to see more choice on the high street but I seriously wonder how many people still rely on physical branches and how many use online banking? When was the last time you went into a bank?
Anyway, usual stuff from Miliband and his socialists. The 'cost of living crisis' is seen to be being solved, as real wages start to exceed prices and so it is time for another soundbite! Worryingly, Labour still have a chance that they might be in charge of the UK economy, after the next election. Miliband the banker - be afraid, very afraid. Remember who ran the economy alongside the disappeared Gordon Brown?
