Are ‘financial and corporate inmates running the political asylum’?

January 27th, 2012 by PCU »

Will politicians who ‘demonstrate fealty to and ownership by’ their corporate paymasters enact rational solutions?

In the FT, American lawyer John E. Hemington, states firmly that Martin Wolf – its chief economics commentator – makes a mistake common to almost everyone proposing rational solutions to intractable problems:

“Thousands upon thousands of similar solutions have been offered by highly respectable and competent individuals over the years. Yet absent an accompanying means for implementation, they represent little, if anything, useful.”

Reasons for non-implementation

“Here in the US, as in Europe, the dominant politico-economic culture is almost entirely corrupt, with the financial and corporate inmates running the political asylum. The politicians who must enact the laws necessary to carry out the recommended changes have demonstrated time and time again their fealty to and ownership by those who pay their campaign expenses and reward them handsomely should they eventually leave office.

“How is it, then, that these essential changes come to be enacted? It is certainly not in the interest of the politicians’ current paymasters to see these reforms placed into law.”

“This ultimate issue is almost never addressed. It is not just what needs to be done; it is how the necessary reforms shall be undertaken. Until that question is addressed, all other recommendations are simply empty rhetoric. It would be refreshing to hear from some of your expert commentators just how this shall be accomplished.” 

John E. Hemington, McMurray, PA, US

Directly-elected city mayors “a constitutional farce” ?

January 25th, 2012 by PCU »

The Yes campaign advocating directly-elected city mayors will be launched today at a cross-party public event in Birmingham attended by Lord Heseltine, Tory former cabinet minister, and Lord Adonis, Labour’s former transport secretary. The Financial Times reports that Communities minister Greg Clark (left) will clarify the process at a meeting of the Birmingham Chamber of Commerce. 

Steve Beauchampé: When the Scots and Welsh voted for devolution, the parameters of power were clearly defined in advance and voters knew the consequences of what they were voting for. The citizens of Birmingham, Coventry and nine other cities holding referenda on elected  mayors do not.                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                 

Are voters expected to make their choice blindfolded? 

Acute observer Steve Beauchampé anticipates no such clarification about the powers to be enjoyed by these mayors. 

Extracts from A Constitutional Farce, reproduced with permission from the Birmingham Press:

Last week it was announced by Local Government and Communities Minister Greg Clark that the powers to be given to elected mayors would not be announced until the autumn, many months after the referendum is held. 

Thus voters will be expected to decide whether to support the creation of what could be the most powerful political post in their region without knowing what powers, duties and responsibilities such a post will carry. 

  • How can the public be expected to cast an informed vote in such circumstances? 
  • How can supporters or opponents of elected mayors make their case? 
  • How can there be meaningful democratic debate if no one knows what the extent and limits of power are for the office that they are being asked to vote upon? 
  • Will the elected mayor’s powers be newly devolved, ceded from Whitehall or transferred from government agencies? 
  • Will they be powers that currently reside with elected councillors and within local authorities? 
  • Or will they be both? Or neither? 

A wide range of powers for elected mayors have either been alluded to by government ministers or sought by local councils, businesses and individuals during the government’s recent consultation exercise. 

Proposals include: the power to raise local taxes, make planning laws, set the national curriculum in local schools, take control of assets formally owned by Regional Development Agencies, oversee public transport policy, become Deputy Police Commissioner. 

Which, if any, of these powers will an elected mayor enjoy? Or will different powers be conferred?  

Steve Beauchampé calls on local politicians and media to speak up now; concluding: 

“[U]nless and until the powers to be conferred on the office of Elected Mayor can be defined and given legal guarantee, there should be no referendum. To stage one under such conditions is absurd and scandalous. Worse, it is an affront to democracy.” 

Read the original article here.

Further news of spending on consultancies

January 21st, 2012 by PCU »
Department for International Development [DFID] 

International Development Secretary Andrew Mitchell, in an answer to a parliamentary question from Shadow aid spokesman Ivan Lewis, said that the Department for International Development spent £2million on governance, construction management and banking consultants from May 2010 to the end of November 2011. A list of recipients was recorded in Hansard. 

Ministry of Defence [MOD]

 In a Lords debate on procurement policy it was noted that the MoD had spent something like £550 million on consultancy fees, with one firm, Alix Partners, apparently charging at the rate of £4,000 per consultant per day. The comment was that industry negotiators have run rings around the MoD over the years. 

Ministry of Justice [MOJ] 

It is alleged that the Ministry of Justice has spent £43million for advice from private companies since the election, but no official source has yet been found to confirm the allegation. 

Conservative MP Patrick Mercer said that government departments are well staffed with civil servants and that much of this work by consultants could be done at a more reasonable rate or even free of charge by civil servants.  

Consultancies: a viral pandemic

January 21st, 2012 by PCU »

Earlier this year Andrew Hill wrote:

“A chairman of multinationals remarks grimly that there are now more middlemen paid to tell managers how to run their businesses than actual industrialists and (real, as opposed to management) engineers. 

“Consultants are “a virus”: let one in and you infect the whole organisation. So says a respected captain of industry . . . 

“Viruses endure. Consultancies outlive scandal and even the failure of clients.” 

Despite Gupta-gate, its promotion of maldevelopment in India, its role in the reorganisation of the NHS and HMRC and its disastrous IT ventures, the advice of the McKinsey consultancy continues to be quoted by journalists, including Gillian Tett this week. 

What did its report on global debt cost?

The figures presented are in the public domain and the advice is not illuminating. UK references – direct quotes from the report

  • The ratio of UK debt to GDP has continued to rise and UK households have increased debt in absolute terms. 
  • The composition of UK debt—how much is owed by different sectors of the economy—diverges from that of other countries. While the largest component of US debt is household borrowing and the largest share of Japanese debt is government debt, the financial sector accounts for the largest share of debt in the United Kingdom. 
  • British financial institutions also have significant exposure to troubled eurozone borrowers, mainly in the private sector. 
  • [A]round two-thirds of UK mortgages have floating interest rates, which may create distress if interest rates rise—particularly since UK household debt service payments are already one-third higher than in the United States. 
  • UK planning and zoning rules can be reviewed to enable expansion of successful high-growth cities and to accelerate home building. Infrastructure improvement and continuing to allow immigration of skilled labor can help ensure that the United Kingdom remains attractive to multinational companies. 
Do the references to planning and immigration in the last point give a lead to the real reasons for writing this report: not only – or even principally – to give information, but to influence the policies of the governments addressed?