Parlez~me~'n~Tory

Rightly Wry, Satirically RIGHT

In my recent post Gordon’s Northern Rock fiasco comes to an end I addressed how Northern Rock shareholders have been dealt their final blow.

Work still progresses on this issue and here is an update:

Northern Rock Valuer’s Final Assessment Notice
You will no doubt now be aware that on the 30th of March, Andrew Caldwell announced his unsurprising decision to value our former shareholding in Northern Rock as worthless.

In his Final Assessment Notice, he quotes the artificial valuation assumptions on which he is bound by law to base his valuation. He is not bound though by moral or professional standards to accept such terms but has chosen to accept them nonetheless.

This latest statement is no different to that given by him in December 2009 where Mr Caldwell requested representations to be made to him, representations on behalf of well over 130,000 small shareholders that appear to have fallen on deaf ears.

As invited by Mr Caldwell, we will be seeking reconsideration of the nil valuation with the hope that such requests receive the required consideration although it would seem that, as long as the Governments artificial terms of reference are allowed to stand in law, Mr Caldwell having accepted the appointment of valuer, may have no choice but to choose law over moral obligation.

You can also take action to further represent your views to Mr Caldwell, which we have detailed below.

Only the day before Mr Caldwell’s statement, the Chancellor stated that Northern Rock had enough Capital: the Special Liquidity Scheme announced only weeks after Nationalisation of Northern Rock would have provided the liquidity required to continue as a “Going Concern”. This key assumption required to arrive at a fair value was not allowed under the Compensation Scheme Valuation Order.

With over £500 Billion available under the Special Liquidity Scheme and Inter Bank guarantees from April 2008 Northern Rock would have continued as a solvent, liquid, profitable entity, therefore supporting the small shareholders claim that their Human Rights have been violated firstly by the Compensation Order and finally now by Mr Caldwell’s report.

Did investors have the correct information on which to base their decisions?
Only two weeks after Andrew Caldwell valued the former shareholding in Northern Rock as worthless, the small shareholders now find the information on which they based their investment decisions was flawed.

The FSA announced their fines of Mr Barclay and Mr Baker for their part in manipulating figures on the performance of Northern Rock’s mortgage book but as yet we have to hear the involvement of Mr Applegarth. So far, Mr Applegarth has been legally gagged and prevented from commenting, but did he and his fellow Directors also know about this manipulation or were Mr Barclay and Mr Baker really alone in this decision-making?

Where were the regulators in analysing their information? Or have we forgotten the regulators involvement, or lack of, in the lead up to the financial crisis. Or the legislators, including Gordon Brown, who as Chancellor changed the limits applicable to the borrowing capacities of banks and building societies 12 years ago.

Where ‘fairness’ now appears to be a political buzzword in campaigning, the small shareholders would like to see evidence of fairness in practice, not just in a manifesto for votes.

It would seem that the government would lay the blame solely at the door of ‘greedy bankers’. Whilst this may be true in part, the outgoing Government bred the said greed in pedigree conditions.

These latest fines fully vindicate the small shareholders claims of ill treatment not only by the governance and regulatory framework but also by the institutions in which they invested. Such governance turned a blind eye and failed miserably to protect the rights of investors large and small.

What action can you take?
As with his December statement, Mr Caldwell has invited former shareholders to make share their views and thoughts through written representations to him on why he should reconsider this assessment.

To reiterate from our last update, it is important to recognise that this news completely vindicates our assertion that the terms of the compensation order were manifestly unfair, and the fact that this valuation has finally been released will remove much of the uncertainty that the government and its lawyers have hidden behind in their (now demonstrably false) allegations that the terms of their compensation order adequately allow for the payment of fair compensation to shareholders.

To this end, former shareholders should write to Mr Caldwell as he has invited them to do so, by the 5th of May 2010. Former shareholders should also make representations to their MPs who sanctioned the legislation that brought about the demise of our assets.

To assist, we have prepared template letters for the valuer. Please feel free to edit this template and include your own thoughts, comments, frustrations and anger in your own letters.

The template can be found on the website at: www.uksa.org.uk/valuerletter

Your letters can be also be emailed to Mr Caldwell at:

northern.rock@bdo.co.uk

You can locate the contact details for your MP at: http://findyourmp.parliament.uk/
Update on legal case: Application to European Court of Human Rights (ECHR)
Following the announcement from the Supreme Court that it would not be accepting the application made by Northern Rock shareholders to appeal the earlier decision of the High Court, the legal case continues to make its way into the European Court of Human Rights in Strasbourg, although it could take up to 3 years for the case to be heard and a decision known.

We will continue to support the small shareholders, headed by lead plaintiff Dennis Grainger, who are now to progress their case to Strasbourg, arguing the case “afresh” (as opposed to an appeal), in a court where the judges have historically had no compunction in making EU-member governments such as ours accountable for the violations of the human rights of EU citizens.

The UK Government is now officially set to sell their shares in Northern Rock without any obligation to any previous shareholder.

The unfair rules given to the “Independent” valuer by the UK Government ensured that the result would always be as appears below. Now Alistair Darling is set to sell shares at a massively inflated price to the gullible British Public whom it stole them from in the first place.

NORTHERN ROCK – Important Information

Further to our previous communication of 15th December 2009, we write to inform you that in accordance with the Northern Rock PLC Compensation Scheme Order 2008, the Independent Valuer, Andrew Caldwell, has determined that as at the Valuation Date, 22nd February 2008, Northern Rock PLC Ordinary shares had no value.

Accordingly, the Independent Valuer has determined that the amount of compensation payable by the Treasury to former Northern Rock PLC shareholders is Nil.

Important Information & Other Key Dates:

The Independent Valuer announced on 29th March 2010, that having carefully considered written representations following his Consultation Document he had prepared another document, the Final Document, which can be viewed in its entirety on the Independent Valuer’s website at www.northernrockvaluer.org.uk.

For reasons set out in the Final Document, none of the representations made have caused the Independent Valuer to change his proposed approach to the valuation or his provisional views on the amount of any compensation payable by the Treasury.

Having applied the Valuation assumptions the Independent Valuer has determined that at the end of the assumed administration there would be a net deficit of approximately GBP5.68 billion. There would therefore be no surplus at the end of the assumed administration for distribution to shareholders.

Accordingly, for the reasons set out in the Final Document, the Independent Valuer has determined that the amount of compensation payable by the Treasury to former shareholders or those whose rights to receive shares have been extinguished is nil.

Should you wish to seek reconsideration of the Independent Valuer’s assessment, requests for reconsideration can be submitted in writing to Andrew Caldwell, c/o BDO LLP, 55 Baker Street, London, W1U 7EU or alternatively by e-mail to northern.rock@bdo.co.uk, noting your postal address, no later than 4th May 2010. Please note as a nominee company we are unable to submit comments on your behalf.

We will notify you in due course upon receipt of any further information from the Independent Valuer.

Is this how you aim to halve the deficit Labour?

An insider quoted the great economist Forrest Gump when he said

…that’s about all I’ve got to say about that

First published on LabourLost as Lord Mandelson is a Dick (Turpin that is) on 22nd January 2010.

Daylight robbery is rife in Britain once again.

In the run up to the General Election #GE10 it has become apparent that the Business Secretary’s contempt for charitable organisations has reached new lows as he robs charities to claw money back the for reckless spending machine that is the Parliamentary Labour Party (PLP).

Last month Lord Mandelson decided to remove an exemption for charities from music licensing rules which quite simply means that from April 2010 those organisations will have to choose between paying large bills if they hold events with recorded music or do without the music completely.

You robbing bastard!

By law all retail outlets are bound by the Performing Rights Society (PRS) representing composers and songwriters, there is no exemption for charities.

However, a large majority of these organisations must also purchase a licence from Phonographic Performance Ltd (PPL) representing performers and record companies. Currently there are two small clauses in the Copyright Designs and Patents Act 1988 (Sections 67 and 72) that exempt charities from this requirement.

Lord Mandelson has decided to remove this exemption following a public consultation by the Intellectual Property Office (IPO) ensuring this is in place for April this year. Is this another sign that #GE10 will be in March?

Let’s consider a few areas this affects so we can see just how bloody silly this really is. A charity shop with music in the background would be forced to pay. Carnival floats that play music would be forced to pay. A carer’s association or nursery playing music to entertain the children would be forced to pay.

Think it’s wrong? You know where to put your X on polling day at #GE10.

Let’s get one thing clear. Minimum pricing on alcohol will NOT solve the problem of binge drinkers and underage drinkers.

What it will do is unfairly penalise the average man or woman in the street. The moderate drinker will now face having to pay extra for their favourite tipple in this misguided act.

A binge drinker will continue to do just that, binge their way through with little care or consequence to their family or outsiders.

An underage drinker will continue to obtain their illegal gains through the same channels but with increased sporadicity. Nobody will be safe.

Let’s face it, this idea is a tax hike by A N Other name designed to hit taxpayers in the pocket in an attempt to curb their enjoyment of a glass of wine at the end of a long hard working day. The ridiculous argument that the moderate drinker will be no worse than 11p per week off under the new scheme is just that, ridiculous.

What’s fundamentally wrong with this idealism is that the underage drinker doesn’t even pay tax let alone own the cash they are purchasing their alcohol with.

The Telegraph highlights a report Minimum pricing on alcohol should be introduced as successive governments have failed to tackle Britain drinking culture

The select committee, chaired by Labour MP Kevin Barron, says that setting a minimum price of 50p per unit of alcohol, to curb excessive drinking in England, could save more than 3,000 lives a year

The average moderate drinker would pay just 11 pence more per week for their alcohol if a minimum price of 40 pence per unit was set, the report said.

Alcohol can be bought for just 10 pence per unit – less than a bottle of water – in some stores, the report said.

That may be but the moderate drinker does not purchase meths or what other cheap crap you can bottle or can.

The moderate drinker by and large purchases to their pallet and that means wine, beer or spirits that are significantly higher in price and quality than mentioned.

Also, I believe we cannot leave it to the market to police. Simply the supermarkets will gang up on those with more cash in their pockets and lump the unfair levy on their choice of vintners special whilst keeping the Diamond White or Tenants Super Strength at rock bottom (just above the minimum price fee) as a loss leader.

One thing this report gets right is that is IT IS successive Governments that have failed to tackle the problem in the same way that it is successive Governments that have been the cause of this problem, namely:

Tony Blair 1997 – 2001
Tony Blair 2001 – 2005
Tony Blair 2005 – 2007 Gordon Brown 2007 – 2010

It was Tony Blair and the Labour Government that introduced the 24hr drinking licences within the UK, again as another tax earner. It was the Labour government that promoted a self obsessed drinking culture.

The problem we have in this country that has been heavily promoted not just in the past 12 years but largely in that timeframe is that there is a large number of people that wish to get ‘tanked up’ before hitting the club or bar they’re heading to. The reason? Because the drinks in that establishment are priced way too high, and what does this new proposal suggest?

I am not for one minute suggesting that prices are dropped across the country or establishment but merely suggesting that a sensible pricing regime is enforced.

When I was the age of clubbing I would not get tanked up prior to the event (often referred to as the ‘pre-lash’) but I would enjoy the time whilst it happened. Yes, I would often drink what I could in the time given at the bars before the club and what i could afford in the club but that is not what occurs today.

Many are the times when people start in the afternoon on cheap low quality alcohol or good quality alcohol they ‘acquire’ in a deliberate attempt to get ‘tanked up’ prior to even hitting the first bar.

Part of the problem is due to the massive closure of local pubs in this country under the current Government but I see little effort from the Cabinet and its representatives to change that any time soon.

I grew up in a pub from the ages of 11 to 16 and as an avid member of the darts team I would visit many pubs throughout the course of the year and see that those pubs were community based, in fact the whole scene was one of community. That has long since gone.

We, in this country need to reinvigorate the local pub scene so that the local public community and the local service community can work together from a local base (the pub) to police the local issues and to control the problems of the local people.

Going back to the supermarkets and their loss leaders this is not an issue in some areas such as Northern Ireland as they are not permitted to display Buy One Get One OFFers or even to supply them, also, alcohol is less visible in stores in NI compared to mainland UK. Maybe that helps? Maybe there are other issues with their culture that affect this issue instead?

Whilst we are on the subject of mainland UK and non-mainland UK why not consider this rather dramatic fact: ‘Fifteen of the 20 areas in the UK with the highest alcohol-related death rates between 1998 and 2004 are in Scotland, and the top five are all Scottish’.

Does that tell us something about the price of alcohol or something about the community within those Scottish regions?

I reiterate that this is not the issue you may think it is. If someone steals to fund their habit this will not stop them.

If they feel they have to have their fix then this will not help them and their family will suffer further.

Please think again.

And the winner for the accumulation of the most historical errors in a Party Political Broadcast go the Labour Party as GuyNews demonstrates.

Today is the Queen’s Speech. Quite possibly the most newsworthy item of the day but I sincerely doubt it.

Many tomes will be written today and in the future about the cynical content of the speech and how it is in effect a pre-manifesto manifesto so I don’t for one minute propose to add to that weight of words.

Instead, I propose to discuss something I feel is far more newsworthy today as I believe it ‘slipped’ under the radar yesterday in the furore of an investment announcement.

Yesterday, Lord Adonis announced that the 10 worst railway stations in England would each get to share £50m. That much we already know.

Fair enough, in the past I have been ‘quietly impressed’ with Lord Adonis and his apparent concern for doing the right thing by the railways but somehow, this just doesn’t sit comfortably with Parlez~me~’n~Tory.

How does Lord Adonis suddenly (1 day prior to a huge swathe of announcements within the Queen’s Speech) decide which stations are to be in his remit for this investment proposal?

What criteria was used for determining the worst stations in the country? Was this a consultative process? If so, with whom and when?

Personally, I believe that the only consultation (external to rail management) was between members of the Cabinet and only very senior members at that.

It is the belief of Parlez~me~’n~Tory that the criteria used was based purely on the best possible chance of a positive return at the General Election. Shall I put that statement into perspective?

Let’s take a look at the stations that are set to benefit and who controls the community. The 2nd line of each entry indicates: MP (Constituency/Benefitting area, Party) Majority (Year entered Parliament):

Station: Barking

Margaret Hodge (Barking, Lab) 8,883 (1994)

Station: Clapham Junction

Martin Linton (Battersea, Lab) 163 (1997)

Station: Crewe

Edward Timpson (Crewe & Nantwich, Con) 7,860 (2008)

Station: Liverpool Central

Maria Eagle (Liverpool, Garston, Lab) 7,193 (1997)
Louise Ellman (Liverpool, Riverside, Lab) 10,214 (1997)
Peter Kilfoyle (Liverpool, Walton, Lab) 15,957 (1991)
Jane Kennedy (Liverpool, Wavertree, Lab) 5,173 (1992)
Robert Wareing (Liverpool, West Derby, Ind) 15,225 (1983)

Station: Luton

Kelvin Hopkins (Luton North, Lab) 6,487 (1997)
Margaret Moran (Luton South, Lab) 5,650 (1997)

Station: Manchester Victoria

Tony Lloyd (Manchester Central, Lab) 9,776 (1983)
Graham Stringer (Manchester, Blackley, Lab) 12,027
Gerald Kaufman (Manchester, Gorton, Lab) 5,808 (1970)
John Leech (Manchester, Withington, Ldem) 667 votes (2005)

Station: Preston

Mark Hendrick (Preston, Lab) 9,407 (2000)

Station: Stockport

Ann Coffey (Stockport, Lab) 9,163 (1992)

Station: Warrington Bank Quay

Helen Jones (Warrington North, Lab) 12,204 (1997)
Helen Southworth (Warrington South, Lab) 3,515 (1997)

Station: Wigan North Weston

Neil Turner (Wigan, Lab) 11,767 (1999)

Do you notice a pattern developing?

It is rather obvious that apart from a token Conservative, Liberal Democrat and Independent the rest are Labour; not exactly with the strongest majorities either.

So, we have many Government ministers that were already set to enter the General Election campaign on very shaky ground who can now point to a huge cash investment in their region as evidence of what the Labour Government can and will do for their community. [It would be very interesting to do some analysis on what the breakdown of each local council is for these regions]…anyone wish to do that work?

Expect countless cries of ‘you wouldn’t get this under a Tory Government’ most notably in the voice of John Prescott to ram home hard the ‘working class’ Labour perception.

With the strategic position of the vast majority of these seats, [don't think for one minute they weren't chosen without that in mind] this investment turns out to be not quite what you thought it was yesterday and with the Queen’s speech today this will be all but lost in the noise. This cannot be allowed to happen.

MP’s from all sides, lobbyists and the blogosphere must leap on this and challenge Lord Adonis for the truth behind his rationale.

Following her summer of madness in which she claimed

if two candidates were equal then businesses should consider employing the woman over the man| and also claimed one of the two top jobs within the PLP should always be held by a woman

…and don’t forget during the summer she was responsible for pushing through the motion to create Baron Martin of Springburn, of Port Dundas in the City of Glasgow without a vote.

It seems that Hattie has once again been warming up on the sidelines. It’s as though the recent talk of Balls preparing a bid campaign and the secrecy of the desire of the Miliband brothers has frightened her into action.

For the first time Hattie has admitted that men are as clever and worthy as women with her following statement to the Treasury select committee

If you’re only looking at half the population, you’re only looking at half the brains and half the commitment

Obviously this is an attempt to allude to the fact of what she calls the ‘nightmare‘ of men-only boards.

Ms Harman went on to say

barring women from top jobs was bad for business and risked the UK’s prosperity as a leading global financial centre

Could somebody please point out to Ms Harman that the Chancellor is doing a first rate job of risking our prosperity on his own and doesn’t need guidance from business!

More ‘off the wall rhetoric’ or rather ‘veiled threats’

‘further steps’ would be taken if the City refused to act

Including the firms losing lucrative Government contracts

Companies with male-only boards were less likely to spot new opportunities and deal with risks

Typically of Ms Harman she presented no evidence for this last statement. I put it to you that there is no evidence for such a statement.