bozo's return

My word is my bond

Back in the day when Bozo was a trader he was really proud of the fact that the whole world of financial markets traded without doubt or hesitation on your word.

If Bozo said to a client "250 million done!" Then the trade for 250 million was done. There was no doubt of it. Actually in 22 years Bozo only did a trade of 250 million once, so donit get the idea he was anything like a big fish! Which makes it even more incredible. Even a small fish could commit his ban to an enormous trade. Acually Bozo did once say "2 Billion done", but it was a one day trade in old fashioned French Francs which doesn't really count. During Bozo's career banks instituted the taping of trading floor phones. But I truly believe these were, at the time, not meant to prevent cheating but to clear up misunderstandings. Basically, back in the day, your word was meant to count for something.

I wonder when exactly it changed. Obviously the dudes at Enron were just plain lying through their teeth, but they weren't bankers. Bankers, especially traders were different. We'd rather lose money than lose our reputation for being true to our word. And now? Well obviously there was a phase in the sub-prime meltdown when bankers and traders were willing to tell barefaced lies to get all those toxic instruments sold. Because frankly, I worked in this world for 22 years and I will never believe the ignorance and stupidity defence. You haven't got that job because you're stupid dude!

And today on my Reuters there popped up the following headline:

Libor fixing probe

Click and have a read.

It probably doesn't gob-smack an outsider the way it smacks Bozo's gob. The formerly unthinkable now requires a probe covering a few (not one but a few) of the biggest banks in the world. And banks who set your mortgage rate by the way!

Bozo still has a few friends in investment banking (the number probably shrinks every day I post a new blog!). And Bozo still thinks most of them are decent, honest, hard-working trustworthy and talented individuals who earn their cash the hard way (even if they don't give enough of it to the poor ~ see yesterday's Bozo Polemic!).

Last year Bozo was turned down for a social drink by someone he felt was an old friend. Certainly someone Bozo owes an awful lot to from the old days. Yet this person thought meeting Bozo was dangerous! "You are a blogger, I don't want to be ambushed!" Since this was last year you can tell that it still hurts the feelings of thick skinned old Bozo!

Someone once said (and my google research skills have failed me in identifying who...): that it is the fate of the unscrupulous man never to trust anyone else.

Dude ~ it was just a beer! And my word is STILL my bond.

 

Fun and Frolics from the Saturday Times

I am a regular reader of the saturday Times... I have two days to read it, I get to read Caitlin Moran (dodgy hair, vitriolic style) and generally I like the Review, which often unearths a book worth reading. On top of which I get a reasonable tv guide for the coming week.

 

This week it did cause the eyebrows to raise though (aside from Ms Moran's hair).

First, the regular feature at the back of the magazine (beta male) - generally facile - but Mr Crampton managed to split two infinitives in para 1. (The Times it seems has gone the way of the BBC in lowering standards.)

Then there was Giles Coren's resto review. I hate to slag off Giles, he has been born into such a difficult situation. He will never be as funny as his dad (RIP) nor as sexy as his sister.

But is it really necessary to have a preamble of 1000 words of self indulgent drivel about politicians and property to a restaurant review?

BUT, the great joy of the whole issue was a throwaway quote from BBC political guru Andrew Marr. According to the News Quiz on the back page Mr Marr believes that:

Bloggers seem to be socially inadequate, pimpled, single, slightly seedy bald young men.

Blimey Andrew, thats pretty much the five star exemplar of the sweeping generalisation!

As for Bozo, well he'd be happy to be still young. Mrs Bozo prevents him being single and pimpled (she is big on skin care) As for slightly seedy and bald...

well hello mr pot! Are you sure Andrew?

One thing is for sure, Bozo wouldn't want to be heads up against Mr Marr in an ugly competition.

 

Have a good week (especially if you are sueing Citbank)

 

Timeless and not so timeless

Let me quote something for you:

(A tax system which penalized the rich more than the poor ... "must appeal to all of us as merely just and rightand not an abuse of power such as we at home have suffered under, when, the power being in the hands of the wealthy landowners.the incidence of taxation was so arranged so that the greater burdens should fall on the backs of the people, while the wealthy landlords should escape almost entirely free."

So who was that? Marx? Engels? Ramsey MacDonald?

Well no, it was wealthy landlord and millionaire businessman William Lever about 120 years ago. I think it's fair to say Lever was a socialist. It is also fair to say he was a rather good businessman. I think his track record makes him hard for businessmen (or investors) to ignore. Because businessmen and investors (especially investors) find it easy to ignore socialists.

The thing , socialism is good for business.

Yes, I said it, and I can almost hear the sound of millionaire invetsment bankers inadvertantly inhaling the froth of their cappucinos as they snort in derision.

Lever's socialism was at least as practical as it was idealistic. He treated his workers well, provding them with fairly priced accomodation and decent wages because he knew they would work harder and produce higher quality work if he did. He believed in the poor being lifted up by the rich, because a well fed and well paid working class were able to spend more money on his goods.

Since 1917 Socialism has had mixed press. The Bolsheviks, Stalin in particular, didn't help it's PR image. Nor sadly and more recently did the UK Trade Union leaders of the 1960s and 1970s.

When Mrs T was elected in 1979 Britain was broken, and it had been broken (bit of a generalisation - and with a deeper backstory that deserves more time....but...) it had been broken by the Trade Unions. There was a backlash against socialism. Greed became good. Money became god. And the collapse of the SovBloc seemed to validate that socialism was unworkable.

It is true that since the collpase of the SovBloc, life for the poor in the west has become worse. Compared with 1990 in most of the west but particularly in UK & US the poor are poorer and the rich are richer. The worsening of this in the 13 years of Labour Goverment really is the most shameful thing.

Lever, a wealthy landlord would have been just as appalled as Bozo.

I think it is interesting that as Nick n Dave take power Britain is again broken. Badly broken. This time it has been broken by the rich.

You see i think what Lever said is timeless... 120 years later it still makes sense for society to have an upwardly mobile lower class who aspire to be affluent consumers. What the rich did was refuse to give them pay rises (bad for shareholder value) but instead offer them vast amounts of credit. Credit that was so profitable for the rich they kept offering it and offering it until it found its way into the hands of those who couldn't pay it back. Ever.

It is time to meet the aspirations of the poor through realising that Shareholders are NOT more important than customers or staff. To make a successful business we need:

• good staff


• good customers


• capital.

If you remove any one of those three you are in trouble. BUT History is full of successful businesses started with no capital whatsoever. It is not full of stories of businesses succeeding with no customers or with rubbish staff.

Which brings me back to timelessness. The reason I like working mainly in the field of communications is that the art is pretty timeless. Sure mechanisms of enhancing words come and go... pictures, videos, powerpoint, the whole deal of raising impact (or obscuring reality) has changed and changed, but basically, people selling to people or inspiring people or gaining support for a common cause... has been going on since... well the Bible.

I think good business is timeless. I think good communication is timeless. But business communicators (business gurus especially) prefer to create myths around the new and different. Well Jack Welch has already discredited the new idea 9as was) of Shareholder value. Other new things are being discredited too. I refer you to the following from the May HBR:

In the wake of Toyota's recalls, Kiechel, author of 'The Lords of Strategy', had strong words for management hero worshippers. "study after study has shown that exemplary corporate performance...doesn't last," he wrote. but business authors "continue to feed our gullability."
The article refers to an HBR editors blog here:

The fab quote from the blog/interview is this:

How concerned are you about the growing gap between the very wealthy and the middle class?

I think it's a major problem, just as I think it's a major problem that we now have an effective unemployment or underemployment rate of something approaching 20%. One of the pernicious side effects of the rise of strategy is that it's made for a greater division within corporations between the elite, who are making the strategy, and everyone else. I keep expecting people to be more bothered by the disparity.

Lever knew he need a happy stable society to sell lots of soap.
I know that wealth predicated on rich people selling assets to each other is not sustainable. Because if we persist in that as the way forward the next crash will happen before we have paid for the last one. The bankers fundamentally succeeded in preserving a system in which they keep the rewards of successful risk, whilst the tax payer pays for all the failures.

If they don't learn that lesson (and since most CEOs have kept their jobs and not got any poorer in the last two years, can you really believe they have learned anything other than keeping to the same activity because it works for them?) then they will cause another crash - and us poor folks will not be able to afford the next bailout.

The daft thing is this. We paid for the bailout because society couldnt afford to have a world where money became worthless.
BUT
WE won't be able to afford another bailout for about 30 years.
So the next time it happens... money will become worthless.
Who loses most?

Enjoy

Well - what to say - far too much as it turns out...

Apparently it snowed in Newcastle yesterday... and today is the coldest may morning in london for 15 years - when we also had a Tory PM. Although he was a lovely grammar school boy like Bozo and not a sleazy old Etonian. Ah well. The world has clearly shifted slightly on its axis.

On such a day as this i think we need to start in a grounded way. In a world that hasn't changed. There was an interview with Roy Hodgson ahead of Fulham's Europa Cup final. He gave a performance that so many CEOs could learn from. He said this.

"Of course our aim is to win the trophy, and if we do we will be very happy. And of course if we don't we will be very disappointed."

Thanks Roy. I feel enlightened. Listen and learn all you communications gurus!

One of the great gurus of the blogosphere once told me:

• Never write long rambling blogs


• Never write blogs that cover more than one subject

So let me today break both those rules. I don't have advertisers or employers to upset so I can write whatever I fancy. All the more grist for the comment mill.

Let me start by reminiscing about Alan Pardew. West Ham hired him from Charlton. he had a good track record, he got us promoted. He had a good first season in the premiership. Then, he got lumbered with tevez and macherano and it all went pear shaped. Badly. Everyone will recall that Tevez scored a goal at Man U that kept West ham up - and that as a result West Ham paid out various amounts of compensation to various second rate clubs who got relegated - because there was a vast amount of illegality and skullduggery surrounding the two Argentinian's registration. No one remembers that in tevez first 19 games he failed to score at all. no one remembers that mascherano was so appalling he hardly played after December. And none of the fuss and illegality about these guys was Alan pardew's fault. None of it. And one day because of it he got sacked. i for one was sad - I liked Alan as manager. But i thought it was right to sack him for a very simple reason. His job title was "manager". That meant he had to MANAGE what was going on. And clearly - on the track record of league results - he did not manage it at all. A manager's failure to manage ought to lead to the sack. Unless he is running a big bank of course. When we give him a wheelbarrow load of tax payer's cash and let himn carry on.

Which brings me to saying goodbye to Gordon. Let us be fair to him - he showed great dignity last night. Eventually.

Of course Bozo has been quite vitriolic about Gordon. I asked myself why. And the answer is relevant for contextual reasons. We all saw a lot of hope in the labour Victory in 1997. Having been disllusioned by Blair in the wake of the phoney 45 minutes, the dodgy intelligence and the diastrous war many of us were looking to Gordon to provide socialism with integrity when he eventually took over. The reasonI have been so nasty about Gordon is doubtless rooted in deep disappointment. The feeling of being let down by someone I wanted to succeed and do so much better. Because, when he gave that very dignified speech last night he made my blood boil.

Why?

WEll he told us he loved the job for its potential the challenges. he wanted to make the UK:

• Greener
• More tolerant
• Fairer

Greener? It seems clear the UK has fallen behind all our emissions targets.
More tolerant? The mis-management of immigration and benefit policy has driven many ordinary working people into the arms of the BNP - which added 1.2% to its vote this election a gain that exceeded the poll gain of the LibDems and was in fact second only to the Tories.
Fairer? As we have often remarked in 13 years of so-called socialism the rich have got noticeably richer and the poor have got noticeably poorer. We paid Sir Fred Godwin his pension and a raft load of RBS execs hundreds of millions in bonuses and then this week released 2,600 RBS jobs. 78 million of those bonuses would have paid those 2,600 people £30k each for the coming year. Bonuses paid in the biggest banking collapse in UK history, and paid to people who presided over it at the expense of ordinary workers. It doesnt sound fairer to me.

I may not be able to give you a definition of socialism with integrity. But I think we have seen a clear example of what it DOESN'T look like.

Gordon and Alan Pardew both carried the job title at the top. They both carried the cost of failure on their shoulders. For once Gordon said "I take full responsibility" and actually DID!

Gordon, you let me down. You were meant to be the true socialist inside New Labour, and you presided over a country that has become less green, less tolerant and less fair under your watch.

So what about the mis-matched marriage of Dave n Nick. Or Nick n Dave.
More on this to come...
If we have to have a Tory Government, having the "more-socialist-than-the-socialists" Lib dems reining them in may be the best of all worlds. Time will tell.

I have said for a couple of days that what we need is leadership. If we get it I won't care what colour the rosettes are. We have a big mess to clear up - and a lot of people will have to make sacrifices to pay for it. Let us hope that even David C will recall that it was a mess causes not by trade unions (a la 1979) but by the ruling and moneyed classes of the City. let is both remember who did it AND who can best afford to pay for it?

Well we can but hope.

I want to finish on the subject of proportional representation.

I think it was Alan Johnson who was giving Nick Clegg a pasting on the radio this morning because only labour could give the LibDems PR. Aside from the issue of sour grapes, let's have a think about PR. Ostensibly fair, but far from practical.

Labour feel its better today than they did in 1997. In 1997 PR would have slashed their majority from landslide to borderline. This time it would have meant that between them the Lab-Lib alliance would have had a comfortable two-party coalition. All big parties blow hot and cold on this. For obvious selfish reasons.

But I suspect that after the nonsense of the past five days that the British people would not want to go through the process we have just seen after every single election. Because that is what we would get.

The last several elections would have on the purest form of PR produced hung parliament after hung parliament. Ypu won't find many Joe Publics (from which category I exclude party members and activists) who would ever want to see it again. This last week will have converted lots of floating voters to first past the post. Of course you can talk about less than pure forms of PR that give more p[ractical results... but once you have less than pure you have something that can be argued against by anyone who loses out. Besides once you go "less than pure" you go towards Alternative Vote. Which is what Nick Clegg has got a promise of anyway....

But lastly let us look at what pure PR would have meant this time. With 0.15% of the vote required for a seat on a 650 ish seat Commons, this year's results would mean:

• A lib-Lab seat total of 346 - a ruling majority.


• But it would mean 20-21 UKIP MPs


• It would also mean 12-13 BNP MPS (Gordon's more tolerant country)

For those of you interested in historical facts in May 1928 82 years ago almost exactly. Adolf Hitler's Nazis won, you guessed it 12 seats. I think it ended very badly a few years later.

This time around the Tories would not have been in the running on pure PR. But it doesnt take a lot of imagination to imagine a scenario under pure PR where the Tories were 30 seats away from government and that UKIP/BNP had 33.....

AV would never lead to it.

Every disappointed labour voter (or disappointed left wing Lib-Dem-er) who looks at what PR would give them should also look at what it would give the BNP and ask themselves if its a price worth paying.

So there was a long rambling blog that broke all the rules of blogging.

Enjoy...

...