All In This Together - Part 1

David Cameron has said we are "all in this together" as the country battles the financial problems such as the mega deficit. It has been decided that richer types won't be getting child benefit from 2013. They don't need it and it will save £1 billion. I don't need the winter warmth allowance, so I'm happy to give that one up. But is everyone playing with the same bat? I suspect those in the "financial services" industry are not yet in a mindset to play nicely.

The bankers are still getting stick from the public. This is partly I suspect because they don't want reform that will expose some of their murkier transactions. Banking was once an honourable profession. It is now infected by the practices of spivs and charlatans. I know of a number of good people who have left modern banking because their consciences were sorely tested by what they were asked to do in order to get a sale.

If we are "all in this together" then those in the financial services need to be properly in with us. When it comes to pensions most of us believe we are dealing with honest brokers. However, this may not be the case. Most of us thought the Robert Maxwell days were gone. But we live today with pension deficits. Why? Because companies have not been paying into the funds. Shortfalls abound everywhere. The Post Office pension fund is a disaster masquerading as a genial leviathan. If ever the outfit is privatised it will be the taxpayer that gets this actuarial monster to deal with. And yet more liability will be heaped on us. The governance of pensions has been left in the hands of the incompetents and handwringers. Not only are the contractual elements of pension funds being flouted but those in power seem not to care. Let the coalition government shine a light on these pension deficits.

Transparency is hard to get in the pension world. BBC Panorama is exposing the collossal fees taken by private pension funds. Pension-selling companies are taking the equivalent of 80% of money paid into some pension plans out in fees and commissions, Panorama has found. In one HSBC pension plan, £120,000 paid in over 40 years would result in fees and commissions totalling £99,900. How much, HSBC? And this organisation used to be run by an Anglican priest. Surely he had some idea of this daylight robbery. HSBC just replied that its pension product is competitive. BUT THEY JUST DON'T GET IT. It is precisely this weasly way of working that has got the banks into such a dim light with the public. Shanghaid indeed! Perhaps when the reverend gent becomes a trade minister he can advise the prime minister on how to clean up this pension fiasco? He and Vince together, the Dynamic Duo. Angela Knight watch out!

Malcolm McLean is a pensions consultant. He says, according to the BBC, that the problem is a lack of transparency when the pension is sold and what seems like a small annual percentage charge grows each year in real terms as the fund gets bigger. "You suddenly find that after 30 or 40 years there's a terrific amount of money lost and I don't think many people actually understood that when perhaps they took out the pension," he said.

Lack of transparency, eh? Well, if we are "all in this together" let's have these pension providers being honest and open. By all means take properly earned fees. Nobody can run a business without a profit. But this is ridiculous. How much of this excessive skimming off the top goes into bonuses? Dig deeper Dave! We need answers.

The city has an expression for poorly performing funds. They're called dog funds. And I expect they come with all the crap as well!


Panorama site

We all need regulating!

Last night I watched Panorama. A rather depressing report about the new Vetting and Barring Scheme. Those behind the new quango seem totally unfazed by the monster they are creating. In fact one of the board members, Donald Findlater, said that people need regulating. This is a common theme of those signed up to do the handiwork of the New Labour Fright Regime. Far from keeping children safe from paedophiles, it will only serve to produce a multi-million pound quango raking in cash from those compelled to register. All the nine million people on the register, me included, will be up for all manner of potential problems.

One man has had a load of vile comments stuffed onto his CRB form. All this about raping children, etc, gets to be shoved around the system for all and sundry to see. In his case it was a load of unsubstantiated allegations. Now that's where this new quango comes into its own. Not just relying on facts from the courts they will include tittle-tattle and innuendo as so-called "soft evidence". It is this Chinese whisper style of policing the state that I find so objectionable. The head of the new Independent Safeguarding Authority, Sir Roger Singleton, seemed to find the prospect of data going astray on a train rather amusing. He claimed he had procedures in place and his staff were well trained. I'll remember that one. He is unwilling to consider that false information can be devastating to lives. Mostly this is about safeguarding those in authority from lawsuits and unnecessary inquiries.

I have a suggestion for Sir Roger. If he is so keen to rid society of paedophilia perhaps he can turn his attention to that radar thing. The one police officers keep going on about each time a conviction is brought against an offender. All the recent convictions would not have come about by anything Sir Roger and his team gets up to.

We live in a society where sleazy activity is carried on in the highest quarters. There is sleaze in parliament, in the boardrooms and in the sporting arena. Debauchery is carried out in most English towns and cities at the weekend. It's called binge drinking. A lot of people care little for behaving well. Added to this sexual gratification is now on a sliding scale of what is permissable or not. The scale has tilted in the direction of debauchery. Is it any wonder some grow up to be abusers, seeing as they have been abused themselves. What makes a young woman want to show her knickers to policemen whilst in a drunken state or a young man drop his trousers for a cheap thrill? It's hardly nature. It's got to be society's nurture.

So Sir Roger could start by addressing the slack approach taken by social services and others to inappropriate behaviour. But I somehow guess he won't. Not his department, is it? Far better to make a mint from nine million people and claim the paedophiles are out of the loop.

Here's his problem. He gets all nine million signed up and starts counting his takings. Then an outrage occurs and a police officer stands before the cameras saying, "This one was below our radar!". What does Sir Roger say next?