AS TRUE TODAY AS YESTERDAY

The question of consequences for the makers of bad or questionable decisions who sent our soldiers into harms way for political gain should be allowed avoid any lasting consequences is not a new one. Rudyard Kipling, wrote Mesopotamia in 1917 after a military disaster in Iraq – the last but one verse is particularly powerful and as relevant today as it was in 1917.

Mesopotamia (1917) – Rudyard Kipling

They shall not return to us, the resolute, the young, 

    The eager and whole-hearted whom we gave: 

But the men who left them thriftily to die in their own dung, 

    Shall they come with years and honour to the grave? 

They shall not return to us, the strong men coldly slain 

    In sight of help denied from day to day: 

But the men who edged their agonies and chid them in their pain, 

    Are they too strong and wise to put away? 

Our dead shall not return to us while Day and Night divide—

    Never while the bars of sunset hold. 

But the idle-minded overlings who quibbled while they died, 

    Shall they thrust for high employments as of old? 

Shall we only threaten and be angry for an hour? 

    When the storm is ended shall we find 

How softly but how swiftly they have sidled back to power 

    By the favour and contrivance of their kind? 

Even while they soothe us, while they promise large amends, 

    Even while they make a show of fear, 

Do they call upon their debtors, and take counsel with their friends, 

    To conform and re-establish each career? 

Their lives cannot repay us—their death could not undo— 

    The shame that they have laid upon our race. 

But the slothfulness that wasted and the arrogance that slew, 

    Shall we leave it unabated in its place?

QUALITY TIME FOR BANKERS?

Quality time for Bankers?

I have no problem with most of the recommendations from the Parliamentary Commission on Banking Standards, which suggested that senior bankers who are guilty of reckless misconduct should be jailed. That’s fine with me, and probably lots of people, but what about the politicians who appear to have largely escaped censure beyond the prospect of being elevated to the House of Lords. Personally I would have been happier had the commission recommended that the politicians who were responsible for the crash in the first place could be held to account (as happened in Iceland) and subject to conviction, should also have faced the prospect of going to jail.

The weighty 571-page report has recommended that the government review alternatives for selling off the Royal Bank of Scotland (RBS), including breaking it up, and has demanded action to make the banking market more competitive. In relation to RBS, the committee only suggested that the Westminster government formally look at different options for the nationalised bank by September 2013. Some committee members recommended splitting RBS between a "good bank" (an active High Street lender with a cleaned-up balance sheet) and a "bad bank" (a warehouse for all of the dud loans left over from last decade's debt bubble).

Another option, which was backed by the Archbishop of Canterbury and committee member Justin Welby suggested breaking RBS up into a number of smaller regional banks. The committee cautioned against rushing to privatise the bank, which it said risked getting poor value for the taxpayer, and because the committee believed RBS first needed to be restructured, in order to make sure it played its key role in supporting the economy. This is the cross-party parliamentary group's fifth report laid into the lack of accountability of bankers and also recommended that some bankers bonuses be withheld for up to 10 years - something that would probably not upset many people, save for the bankers.

TIME FOR SOME CONSEQUENCES?

Back in March I noted with interest that the trial of Iceland's former Prime Minister Geir Haarde, who was accused of negligence in his handling of the 2008 financial crisis that severely undermined the Icelandic economy, had begun in the capital, Reykjavik. A sizeable part of me thinks that it is quite refreshing for elected politicians to face real consequences for their actions? I mention this again because of the ongoing consequences of the embarrassing childlike spat between Osborne and Balls, which has served to provide a degree of distraction from New Labour and the Conservative party’s cosy relationship with the bankers and the City.

Now as most people know Iceland fell into recession when the country's major banks, including on-line bank Icesave's parent company Landsbanki, crashed in the autumn of 2008. Icelanders awoke to find that they owed six times the island's total gross domestic product (GDP), the world's credit markets promptly dried up, they were left high and dry unable to refinance loans. Iceland’s big three banks, who's business web stretched across Europe (with customers that included Welsh local authorities), collapsed under billions of dollars of debt.

Iceland’s economy had largely been based on and around fishing, but in the 1990s, the banks boomed and expanded abroad and Icelanders got cheap credit (just like the rest of us) with next to no regulation. After the crash, the unemployment rate and inflation sky-rocketed, and on the domestic political front all hell broke loose. A huge wave of angry public protests followed and the then Prime Minister Geir Haarde’s government fell in 2009.

The ex Prime Minster was accused of negligence because he had not ensured financial safeguards were in place. He has denied the accusation, saying he was only doing what he thought was best for the country at the time. The ex PM could face up to two years in the slammer if convicted. Ironically he was one of four politicians blamed in a 2010 parliament-commissioned report for contributing to the country's financial collapse, yet is the only one on trial.

In September 2010, the Icelandic Parliament decided that only the ex Pm should be tried on charges relating to the financial crisis, the trial began in March (2012) and ended with a guilty verdict (in April 2012). From here it certainly looks like the former PM was left carrying the can as two current ministers (Prime Minister Johanna Sigurdardottir and Foreign Minister Ossur Skarphedinsson) were not referred to the court, along with some of his former colleagues including the former foreign, finance and business ministers.

In the March 2010, Icelandic voters rejected overwhelmingly via a referendum the proposal to pay the UK and the Netherlands 4 billion euros (£3.4 billion) they lost when the Icesave bank collapsed. The Icelandic citizens view was that they should not be made to pay so much for their banks' bad decisions. Now this is a feeling that I suspect is shared by most of us, save for our elite who are busy making the rest of us pay off their mistakes and the mistakes of their friends at length.

Now where, save in Iceland have the ordinary people had a direct opportunity to pass judgement on any of the deals done to bail out the banks. Back in December 2010, Iceland the UK and the Netherlands agreed a new repayment deal. Iceland's parliament (in February 2011) voted yes to a plan to repay the UK and the Netherlands for reimbursing 400,000 citizens who lost their savings in the collapse of Icesave's parent bank, Landsbanki. Iceland's president, Olafur Grimsson, then put the deal to a public vote. In April 2011, the voters of Iceland once again rejected the repayment deal in a referendum. I wonder how the voters would have voted if we had been given a choice on bailing out the banks?

Anyway while Iceland fell into one of the most severe recessions anywhere in the world when the markets crashed in 2008 and economic output fell by around 12 per cent in two years. Yet despite this Iceland did not fall, an International Monetary Fund reports show that growth has resumed. GDP is expected to increase by a relatively healthy 2.5 per cent in 2011. The Icelandic public finances are on a sustainable path too with government debt projected to fall to 80 per cent of GDP in 2016.

Iceland's output is still more than 10 per cent down when compared to pre-crisis levels. The country's unemployment level is around 6.7 per cent, this is considerably higher than it was pre 2007. The Icelandic standard of living is also well down and there is limited access to foreign currency. The risks to recovery still remain and Icelandic Central bank interest rates are currently going up in order to curb inflation, something that could have an impact on growth. Yet despite all of this the outlook for the Icelandic economy looks much healthier than some other distressed economies in Greece, Ireland and Portugal.

Plaid Cymru believes that only a full public inquiry can offer an adequate response to a scandal on such a scale. A parliamentary inquiry could bring senior figures from the last New Labour administration to the dock under oath. Surely Gordon Brown and Alistair Darling, and Ed Balls and Ed Miliband, their former economic advisers, would relish a chance to clear their names by being called to account for their actions.

Both New Labour and the Conservatives have been (and still are) entirely fixated with putting the market before people regardless of the cost. A parliamentary inquiry could at least shine a light on the City’s murky dealings. Sadly both New Labour and the Conservatives are still entirely hooked on high finance and dazzled by the City’s dodgy money men, so we may have a long wait before we start to see politicians giving evidence in the dock.

UNFORESEEN CONSEQUENCES...

Its no secret, but, I have never been one for elites, whether they be elective, self-selective, cultural, social or sporting (something which may explain a slight dislike of Manchester United on my part). I noted with interest that the trial of Iceland's former Prime Minister Geir Haarde, who is accused of negligence in his handling of the 2008 financial crisis that severely undermined the Icelandic economy, has begun in the capital, Reykjavik. How refreshing for an elected politician to face real consequences for his actions?

Iceland fell into recession when the country's major banks, including on-line bank Icesave's parent company Landsbanki, crashed in the autumn of 2008. The Icelanders woke up to find that they owed six times the island's total gross domestic product (GDP), the world's credit markets promptly dried up, they were left high and dry unable to refinance loans. The county’s three big banks, who's business web stretched across Europe (with customers that included some of our local authorities), collapsed under billions of dollars of debt.

The country's economy had largely been based on and around fishing, but through the 1990s, the country's banks boomed and expanded abroad and Icelanders benefited from cheap credit just like the rest of us. In the immediate aftermath of the crash, the country's unemployment rate and inflation in Iceland sky-rocketed, and on the domestic political front all hell broke loose. A huge wave of angry public protests followed and the then Prime Minister Geir Haarde’s government fell in 2009.

The ex Prime Minster has been accused of negligence because he had not ensured financial safeguards were in place. He has denied the accusation, saying he was only doing what he thought was best for the country at the time. The ex PM could face up to two years in the slammer if convicted. Ironically he was one of four politicians blamed in a 2010 parliament-commissioned report for contributing to the country's financial collapse, yet is the only one on trial.

In September 2010, the Icelandic Parliament decided that only the ex Pm should be tried on charges relating to the financial crisis, the trial is expected to last until 15th March. The former PM was left carrying the can as two current ministers (Prime Minister Johanna Sigurdardottir and Foreign Minister Ossur Skarphedinsson) were not referred to the court, along with some of his former colleagues including the former foreign, finance and business ministers.

In the March 2010, Icelandic voters rejected overwhelmingly via a referendum the proposal to pay the UK and the Netherlands 4 billion euros (£3.4 billion) they lost when the Icesave bank collapsed. The Icelandic citizens view was that they should not be made to pay so much for their banks' bad decisions. Now this is a feeling that I suspect is shared by most of us, save for our elite who are busy making the rest of us pay off their mistakes and the mistakes of their friends.

Back in December 2010, Iceland the UK and the Netherlands agreed a new repayment deal. The country's parliament (in February 2011) voted yes to a new plan to repay the UK and the Netherlands for reimbursing 400,000 citizens who lost their savings in the collapse of Icesave's parent bank, Landsbanki. Iceland's president, Olafur Grimsson, put the deal to a public vote. Back in April 2011, the voters of Iceland once again rejected the repayment deal in a referendum.

Now Iceland has been through one of the most severe recessions anywhere in the world when the markets crashed in 2008. The country's economic output fell by about 12 per cent in two years. Yet the latest report on Iceland by the International Monetary Fund shows that growth is resuming. GDP is expected to increase by a relatively healthy 2.5 per cent in 2011. The Icelandic public finances are on a sustainable path too with government debt projected to fall to 80 per cent of GDP in 2016.

Iceland's output is still more than 10 per cent down when compared to pre-crisis levels. The country's unemployment level is around 6.7 per cent, this is considerably higher than it was pre 2007. The Icelandic standard of living is also well down and there is limited access to foreign currency. The risks to recovery still remain and Icelandic Central bank interest rates are currently going up in order to curb inflation, something that could have an impact on growth. Yet despite all of this the outlook for the Icelandic economy looks much healthier than other distressed economies across the water in Greece, Ireland and Portugal.

Closer to home, there are plenty of people across the Celtic Sea who are less than happy with the choices made by the Irish elite and the fact that they have largely got away without punishment for their crimes, misdemeanour's and bad decisions. Some have called for a fresh start and new republic literally writing off the past (and the debt). In recent history in Ireland (and elsewhere on the European mainland) referenda have produced the wrong result, at least as far as the elite are concerned.

Peadar Kirby and Mary Murphy exposed the winners and losers from the current Irish model of development and related the distributional outcomes of the use of power by Irish elites, in their book Towards a Second Republic. The authors analysis of Ireland's economics, politics and society, and draws some important lessons from its cycles of boom and bust. They also look at the role of the EU and compare Ireland's crisis and responses to those of other states. The book includes a proposal to construct new and more effective institutions for the economy and society, I suspect that it won't be on the summer reading list of any elite near here any-time soon.

Even closer to home there have been no real consequences (or punishments for that matter) for the banking crash for the inhabitants of the Westminster village or the bankers (other than the loss of the odd bonus). The Royal Bank of Scotland (RBS) intended to reward its chief executive Stephen Hester a bonus of £1.4 million despite a fall in share prices. The announcement came days after RBS effectively pulled the plug on profit-making fashion retailer Peacocks who went into administration leaving thousands of livelihoods at risk, only serious public criticism led to the rejection of the bonus.

RBS was bailed out with billions of pounds of taxpayers' money during the financial crisis, but showed a marked reluctance to lend to a profitable business during its time of need. The UK financial sector, on the back of Thatcher's plundering of state assets, created a culture of rewarding failure and neglecting responsibility, encouraged by the hands off approach of New Labour. The Conservative dominated Westminster government, shows a marked reluctance to regulate the excesses of the banking sector, perhaps it might cause a few awkward moments in the club...

An age of consequences?

The current crop of MP's can be said, if one was being kind, to live in an age of consequences, where their actions will hopefully come back and haunt them, especially on polling day, whenever that comes. The recent BBC Ipsos-Mori Poll makes interesting reading with almost 50% of people believing that at least half of all MPs are corrupt.

The new Poll also suggested that there is strong support for independent regulation of Parliament with most adults of voting age, 85% (of those surveyed) would prefer an independent judicial body to scrutinise MPs' affairs. Interestingly enough, despite the detectable fury the Ipsos Mori poll of 1,001 adults suggests that most people - 80% - don’t just blame MPs but believe that the "parliamentary system" is at fault.

The BBC-commissioned telephone survey (which was completed between May 29th and 31st with a 1000 + sample of over 18 year olds) discovered that 7% believed all MPs were corrupt, 17% felt most were corrupt and 24% felt "about half" were - which when you add it all up suggests that 48% of people believe at least half of all the current 646 MPs are corrupt. Yet, some 47% believed only "a few" were corrupt - and 3% believed none were.

When it came to the matter of being asked if they trusted MPs to tell the truth, only 20% said they did and 76% said they did not - this being up from 60% three years ago. Interestingly eough this figure was much lower, 44%, when people were asked about their local MP.

Some 62% of those who were surveyed said they believed MPs put their own self-interest ahead of the country and interests of their constituents. Of those surveyed some 79% supported the idea of some form of recall mechanism which would allow voters to petition to trigger by-elections if they get enough signatures.

All in all roll on Polling Day...