Comments on: Some ideas. http://www.lobbygroup.org/2009/02/04/mission-statement-proposals/ - to affect public sector decisions in the UK. Tue, 11 May 2010 19:07:37 +0100 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.0 By: Goldtop http://www.lobbygroup.org/2009/02/04/mission-statement-proposals/comment-page-1/#comment-67 Goldtop Thu, 12 Feb 2009 18:01:00 +0000 http://www.nutterwatch.com/?p=10#comment-67 Interesting ideas from everyone. An entry on this issues on a mission statement might have to be a little more succinct though...Could our concerns in this area be summed up by the following-<br/><br/>Re-organisation and genuine regulation of the banking system and public sector financial institutions.<br/><br/>? Interesting ideas from everyone. An entry on this issues on a mission statement might have to be a little more succinct though…Could our concerns in this area be summed up by the following-

Re-organisation and genuine regulation of the banking system and public sector financial institutions.

?

]]> By: OldNick666 http://www.lobbygroup.org/2009/02/04/mission-statement-proposals/comment-page-1/#comment-66 OldNick666 Sun, 08 Feb 2009 12:08:00 +0000 http://www.nutterwatch.com/?p=10#comment-66 Executive pay.<br/><br/>This is quite difficult to solve and really needs some new thought. The problem is that a very large proportion of the shares are held by big pension funds. Pension fund managers, executives and remuneration committees are drawn from the same group of people. Shareholders do not there have the correct control.<br/><br/>Idea 1.<br/>By statute take voting rights away from shares held by pensions funds. The could be slipped into the finance bill either as a direct ban or through loss of tax status.<br/><br/>Idea 2.<br/>By appointing remuneration committees largely from a selected group of smaller shareholders or private shareholders.<br/><br/>I do not think that picking a number out of the air Obama style is the proper form of control.<br/><br/>I believe in both freedom and regulation by statute. Regulatory bodies seem to have failed us. Executive pay.

This is quite difficult to solve and really needs some new thought. The problem is that a very large proportion of the shares are held by big pension funds. Pension fund managers, executives and remuneration committees are drawn from the same group of people. Shareholders do not there have the correct control.

Idea 1.
By statute take voting rights away from shares held by pensions funds. The could be slipped into the finance bill either as a direct ban or through loss of tax status.

Idea 2.
By appointing remuneration committees largely from a selected group of smaller shareholders or private shareholders.

I do not think that picking a number out of the air Obama style is the proper form of control.

I believe in both freedom and regulation by statute. Regulatory bodies seem to have failed us.

]]> By: Jericoa http://www.lobbygroup.org/2009/02/04/mission-statement-proposals/comment-page-1/#comment-65 Jericoa Thu, 05 Feb 2009 22:34:00 +0000 http://www.nutterwatch.com/?p=10#comment-65 I agree, it is already getting messy on here. A thing serves its purpose then you move on. We can continue to use this space (thanks for this John) as a general 'pick up' / coordination and postings area maybe. <br/><br/>It is clear it would be useful to have subdivisions with clearer lines of communication or we will go over the same ground and get nowhere / become a mirror of RP's blog, the very thing I think we are trying to get away and move on from.<br/><br/>I am not in a position to suggest suitable locations or set anything up but in terms of a broad structure (there goes the engineer again) i would suggest the following debating spaces.<br/><br/>a philosophical space <br/><br/>a political space<br/><br/>a financial space<br/><br/>a communications and organisation space for lobbying activity in the real world.<br/><br/>a co-ordination space between the groups<br/><br/>I would envisage that we would all observe those spaces but some people wopuld be far more active in some than others. There should be a chairperson for each of those spaces also to keep things ordered but without authority.<br/><br/>As with my engineering team I only ever have one requirement of them.<br/><br/>Noboddy brings their egos to design meetings. It should be a space that is free from self.<br/><br/>I wish I could do more. I will continue to be as active as I can within my dailey family and work responsibilities.<br/><br/>Hope to see you all in a new space of some description soon.<br/><br/>Simon aka Jericoa I agree, it is already getting messy on here. A thing serves its purpose then you move on. We can continue to use this space (thanks for this John) as a general ‘pick up’ / coordination and postings area maybe.

It is clear it would be useful to have subdivisions with clearer lines of communication or we will go over the same ground and get nowhere / become a mirror of RP’s blog, the very thing I think we are trying to get away and move on from.

I am not in a position to suggest suitable locations or set anything up but in terms of a broad structure (there goes the engineer again) i would suggest the following debating spaces.

a philosophical space

a political space

a financial space

a communications and organisation space for lobbying activity in the real world.

a co-ordination space between the groups

I would envisage that we would all observe those spaces but some people wopuld be far more active in some than others. There should be a chairperson for each of those spaces also to keep things ordered but without authority.

As with my engineering team I only ever have one requirement of them.

Noboddy brings their egos to design meetings. It should be a space that is free from self.

I wish I could do more. I will continue to be as active as I can within my dailey family and work responsibilities.

Hope to see you all in a new space of some description soon.

Simon aka Jericoa

]]> By: John Bray http://www.lobbygroup.org/2009/02/04/mission-statement-proposals/comment-page-1/#comment-64 John Bray Thu, 05 Feb 2009 19:11:00 +0000 http://www.nutterwatch.com/?p=10#comment-64 Rahere,<br/>"Get your foodstuffs in and stock up on cash."<br/>Done that - what next? Rahere,
“Get your foodstuffs in and stock up on cash.”
Done that – what next?

]]> By: CoralBloom http://www.lobbygroup.org/2009/02/04/mission-statement-proposals/comment-page-1/#comment-63 CoralBloom Thu, 05 Feb 2009 18:06:00 +0000 http://www.nutterwatch.com/?p=10#comment-63 Once the blog is closed down then we can organise a more useable structure for all to use.<br/><br/>Most of us seem to have created a blog space - that may be useful for the group sepecialists to debate? Once the blog is closed down then we can organise a more useable structure for all to use.

Most of us seem to have created a blog space – that may be useful for the group sepecialists to debate?

]]> By: Spin Doctor http://www.lobbygroup.org/2009/02/04/mission-statement-proposals/comment-page-1/#comment-62 Spin Doctor Thu, 05 Feb 2009 16:02:00 +0000 http://www.nutterwatch.com/?p=10#comment-62 works for me. it is getting a bit unwieldy in this format. works for me. it is getting a bit unwieldy in this format.

]]> By: BobRocket http://www.lobbygroup.org/2009/02/04/mission-statement-proposals/comment-page-1/#comment-61 BobRocket Thu, 05 Feb 2009 15:46:00 +0000 http://www.nutterwatch.com/?p=10#comment-61 Whoa, slow down peeps.<br/><br/>Rahere is right, it is going to get very confusing on here and very quickly. <br/><br/>My fault, I should have only posted one suggestion at a time.<br/><br/>We do need some structure.<br/><br/>How about we only post the suggested items on here, a kind of contributed list, only one item per posting and keep it basic.<br/>My first suggestion should have read.<br/><br/>Change corporate governance rules on executive renumeration.<br/><br/>Rahere could start a thread on livejournal with this one line as a title and we could then discuss this one idea there, reporting back here later if we have any kind of consensus. Whoa, slow down peeps.

Rahere is right, it is going to get very confusing on here and very quickly.

My fault, I should have only posted one suggestion at a time.

We do need some structure.

How about we only post the suggested items on here, a kind of contributed list, only one item per posting and keep it basic.
My first suggestion should have read.

Change corporate governance rules on executive renumeration.

Rahere could start a thread on livejournal with this one line as a title and we could then discuss this one idea there, reporting back here later if we have any kind of consensus.

]]> By: rahere http://www.lobbygroup.org/2009/02/04/mission-statement-proposals/comment-page-1/#comment-60 rahere Thu, 05 Feb 2009 14:19:00 +0000 http://www.nutterwatch.com/?p=10#comment-60 Spin doctor<br/>I might agree if I had any faith left in regulation. I've just been dealing with a problem with an Ombudsman who preaches like Ka, "Trust me, I'm independant". However, their letters were anything but, pigeonholing my case incorrectly and prevaricating, so I then looked and discovered the Chairman of the Ombudsman body states on its blog that he represents the very company I'm complaining about. He should state he respresents the public. Moreover, he's in charge of liaison within that selfsame company with the Ombudsman function he's in charge of. He's judge, jury and executioner in his own court, much like Hampton is in the financing of this mess. I'm now going to go through each and every single regulatory and ombudsman body to assess exactly how much insider dealing has been going on, because to me this looks very much like the entire regulatory structure from top to bottom is a set-up job designed to stitch the entire population up solid. Spin doctor
I might agree if I had any faith left in regulation. I’ve just been dealing with a problem with an Ombudsman who preaches like Ka, “Trust me, I’m independant”. However, their letters were anything but, pigeonholing my case incorrectly and prevaricating, so I then looked and discovered the Chairman of the Ombudsman body states on its blog that he represents the very company I’m complaining about. He should state he respresents the public. Moreover, he’s in charge of liaison within that selfsame company with the Ombudsman function he’s in charge of. He’s judge, jury and executioner in his own court, much like Hampton is in the financing of this mess. I’m now going to go through each and every single regulatory and ombudsman body to assess exactly how much insider dealing has been going on, because to me this looks very much like the entire regulatory structure from top to bottom is a set-up job designed to stitch the entire population up solid.

]]> By: Spin Doctor http://www.lobbygroup.org/2009/02/04/mission-statement-proposals/comment-page-1/#comment-59 Spin Doctor Thu, 05 Feb 2009 13:14:00 +0000 http://www.nutterwatch.com/?p=10#comment-59 Wharfgirl <br/><br/>in 1933 the Glass-Steagall act was introduced to keep investment banking and commercial banking separate. Since the early 19080's this was slowly whittled away and in 1999 the US completely revoked the act.<br/><br/>On the Yuan - I agree that there has to be some element of revaluation. This has contributed in large part to the mess. Fixed rat mechanisms like this always have the potential to overwhelm the economic system. Surprising how little we actually hear about this even though China has been following this "beggar thy neighbour" policy for so long now.<br/><br/>rahere - <br/><br/>to me the real problem with off balance sheet items in banks has been the whole structured credit market. The amount of securities that were shoved into SIV's is just staggering. The rationale behind the products was always questionable, but no one cared as long as the going was good and asset prices climbed. This is where regulation really needs to be tightened up. The CDS market also really needs to be tightened up - more transparency through an exchange traded mechanism and also effective rules on "naked CDS's". I am actually hopeful that something may actually happen in this space. I dont think we would lose that much if they were to be banned completely.<br/><br/>Ratings agencies - the relationship here is completely ludicrous. The ratings agencies effectively get paid by the banks to rate their bond issues. Huge conflict of interest, this needs to be fundamentally addressed. I would have thought they should fall under the regulatory umbrella - it is astounding that this situation has been allowed to persist for so long. Wharfgirl

in 1933 the Glass-Steagall act was introduced to keep investment banking and commercial banking separate. Since the early 19080′s this was slowly whittled away and in 1999 the US completely revoked the act.

On the Yuan – I agree that there has to be some element of revaluation. This has contributed in large part to the mess. Fixed rat mechanisms like this always have the potential to overwhelm the economic system. Surprising how little we actually hear about this even though China has been following this “beggar thy neighbour” policy for so long now.

rahere –

to me the real problem with off balance sheet items in banks has been the whole structured credit market. The amount of securities that were shoved into SIV’s is just staggering. The rationale behind the products was always questionable, but no one cared as long as the going was good and asset prices climbed. This is where regulation really needs to be tightened up. The CDS market also really needs to be tightened up – more transparency through an exchange traded mechanism and also effective rules on “naked CDS’s”. I am actually hopeful that something may actually happen in this space. I dont think we would lose that much if they were to be banned completely.

Ratings agencies – the relationship here is completely ludicrous. The ratings agencies effectively get paid by the banks to rate their bond issues. Huge conflict of interest, this needs to be fundamentally addressed. I would have thought they should fall under the regulatory umbrella – it is astounding that this situation has been allowed to persist for so long.

]]> By: rahere http://www.lobbygroup.org/2009/02/04/mission-statement-proposals/comment-page-1/#comment-58 rahere Thu, 05 Feb 2009 10:09:00 +0000 http://www.nutterwatch.com/?p=10#comment-58 Wharfgirl<br/>Of course it is possible to split the streams, that's what Rahere's been preaching for months now, they're run as separate streams because their activities are functionally different, excepting that businesses use current and deposit accounts as well.<br/>The biggest risk now is that it may be too late to do in practice: the signs are that next week may be bloody, that wall I've been taklking about looks as if it's about to hit right on schedule. Get your foodstuffs in and stock up on cash.<br/>Quite right about the Yuan, but there should be some payback too.<br/>On personal allowances, you'll never achieve that in recession, sadly. It's an aspiration for the recovery period, though.<br/>Can I add another pump-primer, though. The concept of Intellectual Property was initially intended to protect start-up enterprises from the avaricity of the Guilds. It has now become the hunting ground of big business to kill rivals, and that's wrong. Just as a Patent runs out quite quickly, so should the availability of the patent system to existing businesses - Rahere would suggest that patents shoudl only be available to companies in the first ten years of their existence, and should not be available to companies subsidised by, associate to or subsidiaries of any older company, regardless of whether it's been reformed or not. Wharfgirl
Of course it is possible to split the streams, that’s what Rahere’s been preaching for months now, they’re run as separate streams because their activities are functionally different, excepting that businesses use current and deposit accounts as well.
The biggest risk now is that it may be too late to do in practice: the signs are that next week may be bloody, that wall I’ve been taklking about looks as if it’s about to hit right on schedule. Get your foodstuffs in and stock up on cash.
Quite right about the Yuan, but there should be some payback too.
On personal allowances, you’ll never achieve that in recession, sadly. It’s an aspiration for the recovery period, though.
Can I add another pump-primer, though. The concept of Intellectual Property was initially intended to protect start-up enterprises from the avaricity of the Guilds. It has now become the hunting ground of big business to kill rivals, and that’s wrong. Just as a Patent runs out quite quickly, so should the availability of the patent system to existing businesses – Rahere would suggest that patents shoudl only be available to companies in the first ten years of their existence, and should not be available to companies subsidised by, associate to or subsidiaries of any older company, regardless of whether it’s been reformed or not.

]]>