Ethical Companies – The Blog

Gordon Brown accepts a pay cut (for David Cameron)

Gordon Brown’s last act was to deprive David Cameron of hundreds of thousands of pounds. Gordon Brown’s failure to turn up for the State Opening of Parliament may well have been because he couldn’t look David Cameron in the face. Mandrake hears that one of Brown’s final acts in the Downing Street bunker was quietly to organise a pay cut for his successor which he must have known would leave him out of pocket to the tune of hundreds of thousands of pounds. On Brown’s orders, the Prime Minister’s remuneration package was cut from £194,000 to £150,000, but this was done with such stealth that no formal announcement was ever made.

Indeed, I am told that Cameron entered Downing Street blissfully unaware that he would, as Prime Minister, be earning only marginally more than he had as the leader of the Opposition. One imagines that the poor chap must therefore have set about implementing his pre-election pledge of an across-the- board cut in ministerial salaries of five per cent with a heavy heart as this took his salary down to £142,000. Over the course of a five-year parliament, I calculate the personal loss to Cameron will be in excess of £250,000, and this is not counting the pension benefits. “This was pure Gordon,” harrumphs my man in Whitehall. “Quite prepared to make the big sacrifices – so long as it wasn’t him who actually had to make them.”

What a petty minded and spiteful act. Speaks volumes about the Labour Party in my opinion.

Steve

Tweet This Post 

As this is not a political blog (although like most of the populace I have a passing interest in the governance of our country) I’ve not really commented on Gordon Brown’s demise and the resulting coalition government.  However, I do have to say I’m feeling moderately optimistic now, and the right rumblings are coming from parliament.  I particularly like the following:

• “Substantial rise in income tax allowances for lowest paid from April 2011″. This will be beneficial for the lowest paid in our society, and let’s face it there’s plenty of people on minimum wage in our country.
• “Fixed-term Parliaments – next election in May 2015″. Such a simple idea, why didn’t we use it before ? It now means an election will HAVE to be called, no more waiting for the current prime minister to call an election when he/she feels his party at its most popular (or when they no longer have a choice, a la Gordon Brown).
• “Right of the public to “recall” corrupt MPs”. Blimey, didn’t expect that one.
• “New National Security Council to manage different security threats”. If this means no departmental (eg MI5, Special Branch, MI6 and so on) “wars” and a spirit of sharing, cooperation and compromise then it has to be a good thing.
• “No further powers ceded to EU without referendum”. Well yes I agree, such a major shift should only made in response to the vox populi (voice of the people). Labour should have called a referendum over our entry into the Lisbon Treaty in my opinion.
• “UK not to join euro in lifetime of Parliament”. David Cameron promised this on a number of occasions in the last few months. While I can see pros in joining the Euro, I can see more cons. Your experience may vary ….
• “Great Repeal Bill including abolition of ID cards”. A reversing of the effects of state erosion on personal privacy. Saves us 5 billion quid in the process.

It’ll be interesting to see if David Cameron and Nick Clegg are up to the task, let’s hope so and let’s hope they don’t disappoint, I sense an air of hope. Oh and if you haven’t seen the cover of today’s Sun newspaper check the picture below out

Steve

Tweet This Post 

“Economists say Britain faces the deepest spending cuts for a generation as it tries to plug the £ 167 billion black hole left in the public finances by Labour” – Spotted today here.

Ouch.  That’s a lot of “cash”.

Steve

Tweet This Post 

“We have a Government that has contempt for the views of the people it governs.
There is nothing that the British people can talk about, that this Labour Government doesn’t deride.
Talk about Europe and they call you extreme. Talk about tax and they call you greedy. Talk about crime and they call you reactionary. Talk about asylum and they call you racist; talk about your nation and they call you Little Englanders … This government thinks Britain would be alright if we had a different people. I think Britain would be alright, if only we had a different Government.
A Conservative Government that speaks with the voice of the British people.
A Conservative Government never embarrassed or ashamed of the British people.
A Conservative Government that trusts the people [...] This country must always offer sanctuary to those fleeing from injustice. Conservative Governments always have, and always will. But it’s precisely those genuine refugees who are finding themselves elbowed aside.” – William Hague (the new Foreign Secretary)

When reading this (I spotted it on Wikipedia) I couldn’t help but think of the Gordon Brown Bigotgate scandal Say what you will about Gillian Duffy she’s entitled to her opinion, and to her “voice”.

Steve

Tweet This Post 

Nice one Gordon, keep it up

Steve

Tweet This Post 

Well I had to laugh at Labour’s latest “idea”. A poster created by a staunch Labour supporter showing David Cameron on the bonnet of an Audi Quattro, Gene Hunt style (Ashes To Ashes). This is, however, a bad idea on a number of levels:

1. Gene Hunt is actually considered to be quite a “cool” character, and this actually makes Dave seem quite cool, and he looks approachable and open.
2. Audi Quattros are seriously cool cars, and coming from Mr Non Petrolhead (me) this is high praise. Ditto the “making Dave look cool” stuff from point 1.
3. The 1980’s weren’t that bad really. Ok they weren’t exactly my “golden years” but it seemed a whole lot easier to get a job then, and life was far less hassle than it is now. I know Margaret Thatcher and John Major come in for a lot of flack but I honestly think they were a hell of a lot better than Tony Blair and Gordon Brown.
4. Labour have left themselves open to a 1970’s version ….

Oh dearie me. Now that is far more “truthful”. The 1970’s were rife with strikes, the Winter Of Discontent and the absolute mess Labour had made of our economy. Many of you reading this won’t remember 1979 (I don’t remember it that well myself) but you really should go and ask your parents and grandparents what Labour did to our country in the 1970’s before you vote.

Steve

Tweet This Post 

“A weak currency arises from a weak economy, which in turn is the result of weak government” – Gordon Brown

Way to go Gordon, real foot in mouth syndrome there

Steve

Tweet This Post 

“Gordon Brown, the worst Prime Minister ever, failed in his primary duty as chancellor, which was to take the punch bowl away when the party was clearly getting out of control” – Tim Martin (Chairman of Wetherspoons)

Steve

Tweet This Post 

Labour should get on the right side of the alcohol debate.

Tom Harris MP:

“I’LL TRY to keep this short…

Alcohol abuse is a huge problem in this country, much greater than problems caused by illegal drug abuse or by smoking.

I don’t know how to tackle it, I really don’t, because our culture venerates the act of getting drunk. Too many people go to the pub at weekends not to have a drink but to get drunk. As a nation, a significant minority of us seem to be incapable of enjoying a drink without actually becoming paralytic.

“Ah!” say our very civilised, sophisticated (dare I say “middle class”?) moral guardians. “It’s the working classes that are the problem. We, of course, have enough disposable income to enjoy a nice Chablis when the mood takes us, and that’s as it should be. But it’s simply not good enough for the Burberry-wearing classes to be able to afford their own favourite tipple, in boxes of 48, out of the local Asda.”

If we genuinely believe that the only way we can stop people over-indulging is to make alcohol too expensive for “them” (and we know who “them” are, don’t we?), then we might as well throw in the towel right now.

First off, it’s patronising. Secondly, it wouldn’t achieve any long-term cultural or attitudinal change, which is what’s really required if Britain is going to get over its love affair with drunkenness.

And thirdly – and by far most importantly – minimum pricing of alcohol won’t work. Do you imagine that the type of person who gets blitzed on a 12-pack of Carlsberg from the local supermarket is going to see the new, increased price label and say to himself: “No, I can no longer afford to indulge my drinking habit. I will therefore save my money and spend it instead on books for my children.”?

If someone wants to get drunk, then you know what? They’re going to get drunk. If they have to go into debt or deprive their families of the bare essentials in order to do it, then that’s what will happen. And given that for those in work, levels of disposable income are higher than ever, you’d have to push prices up a hell of a lot before it would have even a marginal impact on consumption.

People drink alcohol for many reasons, and the price of it may well be a factor. But I doubt if it’s anywhere near the most important one. I hope the government doesn’t end up on the wrong side of this argument, as Paul Waugh hints today.

Of course, if people were allowed to have a fag in the pub then perhaps they’d be less inclined to buy cheap booze from the supermarket and drink it at home. But let’s not go down that road again ….”

Tom Harris is clearly a pragmatist and I find myself almost liking the guy. But I do have one question. What happened to “secondly” ?

Steve

Tweet This Post 

I was looking for something about Jaguar (the car that is) on the internet recently and as per usual I toddled off to Google to enter my specific search query. One of the “targeted” advertisements that came up stated: “See the new Jaguar everybody’s talking about – Click here !” (well not exactly, but you get the idea.) Then it occurred just how ridiculous a statement “everybody’s talking about” is; as in:

• “See the new Jaguar everybody’s talking about – Click here !”
• “The Eastenders episode everybody’s talking about”
• “Everybody’s talking about Avatar !”

When you think about it it’s a complete lie.  I’m not talking about Jaguar, I’ve never watched EastEnders and as for Avatar I’m aware it’s a film but it could be the new James Bond movie for all I know.  Even something as topical as the ineffectiveness of Gordon Brown and you’ll find everybody is NOT talking about it.

I suspect “everybody’s talking about it” is yet another attempt by marketing executives to try and create some interest in a basically naff product, as in “everybody’s talking about it so YOU REALLY SHOULD TAKE A LOOK.”  Well I have news for the marketing boys and girls, it ain’t working and it’s a LIE.

Steve

Tweet This Post