THE DAYS OF ANGRY DAVE...

An angry David Cameron pictured earlier! 

Where-ever else we are it may be safe to say that David Cameron is well over a million miles away from those 'hug a hoodie' sentiments expressed back in Manchester in July 2006. The 'English Riots' as they have been called have generated more than a fair amount of some of irate (and some of it ill-informed) opinion circulating since the riots of last week – some of it from social (both right and left wing) commentators, not to mention ivory tower dwelling academics and politico’s of various hues calling for a tough line and a clamp down on gang culture, wanton criminality, etc.

Some of the angry rhetoric is from the PM – no doubt about it Cameron is in a bad mood, I can understand that, he had to speed back from Tuscany to sort out the mess created by the riots, abandoning his holiday. I suspect that we may all see a great deal of Angry Dave as the gloves appear to be off and the war against the underclass, scroungers, benefit cheats (you take your pick) will no doubt continue for a while yet.

While this safe and happy ground for the right wing Tories who are not doubt much more comfortable with fulminating about riots (no doubt with acres of thundering Daily Mail editorials – calling for national service, deportations, evictions and the cancellation of any miscreants benefits, etc) than they have been with Cameron’s caring cuddly conservatism. As for the party formally known as New Labour appears to be on less steady ground – attempts to spin a narrative based around social deprivation and cuts came to a crashing halt on News night the other week when Michael Gove and Harriet Harman went head to head in what can best be described as the battle of the lightweights.

There has been a lot said about ‘greed’ of late and much condemnation of blatant criminality, it’s a pity that similar condemnation and the loud calls call for a rigorous application of the law have not been applied to tax evasion, tax avoidance and some of the dubious activities of the banksters within the banking sector. There are inherent dangers for the politicians not far down the line once they start to preach, especially when a significant number of them got caught with their hands in the till.

Where next we may all ask - we have a had the war on drugs (failed), we have had the war on terror (failing) are we now destined to see the war on the gangs! Best to search out a moral high horse and possibly a sword of truth (or vengeance in the case). The only problem is if you are going to preach it helps to have some sort of moral grounding. Both New Labour and the Con Dems have sat back and done nothing while the suited and booted professional looters or banksters got away with it. Milibland and Cameron are sitting pretty while the profiteers who run the energy cartel and our railways make tidy (if not excessive) profits at public expense and not a word is said.

Milibland has rightly said that MPs, journalists and bankers have been shown to be greedy and immoral and that they are part of the problem. Cameron has also drawn attention to what he see as a moral decline in banking and elsewhere among the wealthy. Hoodies might be out of fashion, it's worth noting that in certain circles when Bullingdon club members smash up restaurants, go on a rampage, no doubt stealing or trashing other peoples property and generally behave on a drunken, violent and obnoxious way for some reason they are engaged in high jinks, etc.

The Con Dem Government seriously needs to re-think it’s plans to cut police budgets by 20%. In the past, when the economic situation is poor, there has been an associated rise in crime such as thefts and burglary. The police have long pointed out that a 20% cut made to police forces in England and Wales would lead directly to difficulties in policing on the front-line. Neither the threat of cuts, job losses or heavy handed politicians (within and without the Home Office / Ministry of Justice) does not helps Police or Police civil staff morale at all, it merely sends the message that the Con Dem government does not value their sacrifices and their work on the streets.

The Universities Police Science Institute has estimated that the government grant for local policing will fall by £1.36bn over the next four years, this suggests that local services in England and Wales will be most affected by government cuts to the policing budget. The institute's report has noted that the rise in police officer numbers that took place since 2004-5 enabled the expansion of neighbourhood, or community, policing; and so logically they point out that cuts in funding for neighbourhood and community policing will have the greatest impact in some of our most vulnerable communities.

SONS OF BANKERS!

Sometimes you may wonder why people get involved in political life - motivators can not doubt be wide and varied, from righting an obvious wrong, a particular issue (or issues) that need sorting out or fixing, a passion for the environment, social justice, even a somewhat selfish desire to better themselves - while the later is less palatable, it is the case in certain circumstances. For the life of me I can find no obvious reason for getting involved in politics for David Cameron, George Osbourne, Boris Johnson, Nick Clegg, and their ilk - other than a need perhaps to have something to do everyday.

Now, we have been repeatedly told that we are all in it together, sounds nice,but, its not quite true, most of us are very much more in it than some are. The Guardian (05.02.2011) revealed that a number of Con Dem ministers set up blind trusts so that they can continue to profit from financial interests which could present a conflict with their government responsibilities.

Ironically there was a threefold increase in this sort of thing under the Conservative / Liberal Democrat coalition government by way of comparison with the previous sleaze tainted New Labour government. The Guardian noted that 16 ministers, including the energy secretary, Chris Huhne, the justice secretary, Ken Clarke, and the cabinet office minister, Francis Maude, put blind trusts in place, as recorded by the official register of ministerial interests.

Do you remember this...

"It is wholly untenable to have millions of people making sacrifices in their living standards only to see the banks getting away scot-free."

Nick Clegg, Deputy Prime Minister, 17 December 2010

and also this...

"Bankers have to realise that the British public helped to bail out the banks and it is very galling when they see bankers pay themselves unjustified bonuses."

David Cameron, Prime Minister, 17 December 2010

The previous New Labour government made much of its light financial regulatory touch, at least until the wheels came spectacularly off the wagon, will the Con Dem's make much of their effective refusal to take any action over banking regulation. Before they were in government and before the last Westminster election Vince Cable (now the Business Secretary) and George Osbourne (now the Chancellor) were at it hammer and tongs as to who was going to be toughest when it came to regulating and controlling the worst excesses of the banks. And since they went into government?

The Con Dem UK Government missed an opportunity to break up and 'privatise' the larger 'publicly owned' financial institutions, they should have sold the shares on the open market with specific quotas on how many shares any one institution can own. From where many people are sat these bloated overgrown banking organisations appear to be a serious block on the ‘free market’ and too busy lining their own pockets.

George Osborne and the Tories appear to have reluctantly gone along with the much publicly stated need to regulate the more unsavoury aspects of the banking sector, but, whether they will actually and eventually do anything is open to question. Perhaps they ought to declare an interest regulating the banks in the City may impinge on the acquisition of future lucrative directorships in City banks unless they have them already that is?

One question that may also remain unanswered is whether or not they will do anything about tax evasion, tax avoidance and the regulation tax havens? It's odd really because the Con Dem's have displayed such zeal in their efforts to chase people on benefits. Sadly I suspect the answer will be no (in relation to tax evasion at least) as any such move would ruffle more than a few feathers in the City and no doubt more than a few awkward questions at dinner party's?