Who is the US Attorney's superhero ?
April 30, 2010
1970s children's cartoon show Hong-Kong Phooey starts out with the question, "Who is the Super-hero ?" emblazoned across the US media today is the initiation of criminal proceedings against Goldman Sachs investment bank (triggered perhaps by political dissatisfaction with the Senate hearings).
GS's share price has fallen 8.42% today in today's trading session thus far. More importantly the name is being dragged through the reputational mud. So much for the money spent on lobbying and maintaining the GS alumni network.
More interestingly are the references to the US Attorney's office in Manhattan - noone is mentioned by name as leading this prosecution. Does this mean it is a political game being played for which no aspiring attorney wants to be smeared. After all, how does one finance their election campaign after going after an investment bank with rather deep pockets ?
One would suspect, were there a robust case that an ambitious Attorney would go public into battle with an eye on being a future NY Mayoral candidate, Senator, President etc.
For Goldman Sachs clearly the bank's share price will recover though sadly the reputational blow even if reduced to the odd joke on bulletin boards will remain for a generation as will the general impression that "it was Goldman Sachs fault" - forget the other banks and institutions playing this game - however the US Government own stock in the others - so expect a willing conspiracy of silence amongst the rest of the industry.
It's never easy being Number one!
Friday 30 April 2010
UK Election 2010: Quick Reference Guide
The UK Parliament which started under the Premiership of Tony Blair and changed mid-term with the same Labour Party, though with Gordon Brown as PM, is now facing re-election on May 6, 2010. Since the 2005 Election all three main political parties have switched leaders.
The UK Political system centers on the House of Commons (equivalent to the US Congress) with some 650 members of parliament (MPs - Congressmen) each responsible for a geographic constituency (US - Congressional District). Unlike the US system of mid-term elections of their Congressmen and women the UK system involves all MPs being eligible for re-election at a General Election under a first-past-the-post (ie. most votes wins) system. The number of MPs each Party garners leads to the Party with the most being chosen to form the Government by Her Majesty, the Queen (the British Head of State).
2001 Election Statistics 2005 Election Statistics
Labour - 413 Labour - 356 (324 seats required for a political majority)
Conservative - 166 Conservative - 198
Liberal Democrat - 52 Liberal Democrat - 62
Total votes cast - 26.3m - 27.1m
Political surveys (polls) conducted throughout the election show a tight race with Labour trailing the opposition Conservative Party. However, the rise of the Liberal Democrats, in part through the Conservative blunder of allowing them fair and equal air-time in the first three televised Prime-Ministerial debates makes a coalition Labour-Liberal party more likely. The last precedent for this was during the early 1970s and the dark days of the OPEC oil crisis. Of course, the outcome of this was the election of a Conservative administration which held office for near two decades thereafter.
The election I think can be seen as a re-run of the 1992 election. Although the Conservative Government of John Major was seen as weak the electorate were just not ready to trust Labour. Whilst a coalition or lame-duck Labour win will preserve some careers the likelihood of a conservative government following the next Labour or coalition administration is 100% likely. Coalitions do not get re-elected.
However, for the Labour Party one could suspect a quick putsch to remove Gordon Brown within 12 months of a election victory. If the Conservatives will inherit the next part of the UK political story, a few Labour leaders-in-waiting will want to get their place in history secured - and fast.
A Conservative loss traditionally triggers the resignation of the leader and a change. One could suspect William Hague's moment has come to re-assert his mantel as the most likely next Conservative Prime Minister. I remember meeting him and his wife Ffion at Conservative Central Office in the early 2000's - she wore knee high leather boots.
The UK Political system centers on the House of Commons (equivalent to the US Congress) with some 650 members of parliament (MPs - Congressmen) each responsible for a geographic constituency (US - Congressional District). Unlike the US system of mid-term elections of their Congressmen and women the UK system involves all MPs being eligible for re-election at a General Election under a first-past-the-post (ie. most votes wins) system. The number of MPs each Party garners leads to the Party with the most being chosen to form the Government by Her Majesty, the Queen (the British Head of State).
2001 Election Statistics 2005 Election Statistics
Labour - 413 Labour - 356 (324 seats required for a political majority)
Conservative - 166 Conservative - 198
Liberal Democrat - 52 Liberal Democrat - 62
Total votes cast - 26.3m - 27.1m
Political surveys (polls) conducted throughout the election show a tight race with Labour trailing the opposition Conservative Party. However, the rise of the Liberal Democrats, in part through the Conservative blunder of allowing them fair and equal air-time in the first three televised Prime-Ministerial debates makes a coalition Labour-Liberal party more likely. The last precedent for this was during the early 1970s and the dark days of the OPEC oil crisis. Of course, the outcome of this was the election of a Conservative administration which held office for near two decades thereafter.
The election I think can be seen as a re-run of the 1992 election. Although the Conservative Government of John Major was seen as weak the electorate were just not ready to trust Labour. Whilst a coalition or lame-duck Labour win will preserve some careers the likelihood of a conservative government following the next Labour or coalition administration is 100% likely. Coalitions do not get re-elected.
However, for the Labour Party one could suspect a quick putsch to remove Gordon Brown within 12 months of a election victory. If the Conservatives will inherit the next part of the UK political story, a few Labour leaders-in-waiting will want to get their place in history secured - and fast.
A Conservative loss traditionally triggers the resignation of the leader and a change. One could suspect William Hague's moment has come to re-assert his mantel as the most likely next Conservative Prime Minister. I remember meeting him and his wife Ffion at Conservative Central Office in the early 2000's - she wore knee high leather boots.
Thursday 29 April 2010
Commentary on the final British Election Prime-Ministerial debate
Commentary on the final British Election Prime-Ministerial debate
April 29, 2010
This evening the three party leaders Gordon Brown (Labour), David Cameron (Conservative Party), Nick Clegg (Liberal Democrat) held their third and final public debate together televised by the BBC which I was able to view from New York via internet.
Sartorially the opposition party leaders wore ties echoing the colour of their party (Cameron Blue & Clegg Orange) whilst Gordon opted for a purple tie (blue & red!).
Early in the debate the issue of efficiency savings came up - playing to Brown's knowledge of financial issues. Unfortunately Gordon continues the bullfrog-like gasping for breath mid-sentence though powerfully referring to the 1930s as the risk of budget cuts.
Also the leaders all indicate the Ministry of Defence (MoD) will not be spared the efficiency cuts - some 6 Billion pounds. Under Blair the Gershon efficiency savings have struggled to deliver after the initial push of the Office of Government Commerce in the late 1990s. The MOD was only mentioned in the context of Gordon Brown maybe or maybe not providing rises to the defence budget.
Nick Clegg appears to come across more as a moderator "here they go again" and less as a political party leader - which might translate into positive votes on May 6th, 2010.
David Cameron looks like he has been in a spa for several days - facials, sun tanning and botox ?! Gordon Brown looks exhausted though combatative.
The second discussion revolved around taxes - the incumbent government indicated the priorities for spending - policing, education and health care. Brown was combatative focusing on class differences (conservatives - inheritance tax) "unfair & moral".
The third question focused on remuneration in the financial sector. Interestingly, the Conservatives started out wanting to increase regulation and to tax banks (a variant of the windfall taxes of the late 1990s?) and to block banks from participating in certain activities. Liberal Democrats state no cash bonuses for board level bankers. Labour push the saving of voters deposits by nationalising banks and therefore their protectors.
Bizarre follow up by David Cameron that Labour hitched the economy to the City of London, despite the pivotal role of the Thatcher Government in privatisation during the 1980s and financial services liberalisation.
NIck Clegg articulated a good argument for simple methods to improve the state of the manufacturing base and hit out at the bailout of the Royal Bank of Scotland who were involved in the Kraft:Cadbury acquisition which led to job losses in the UK.
April 29, 2010
This evening the three party leaders Gordon Brown (Labour), David Cameron (Conservative Party), Nick Clegg (Liberal Democrat) held their third and final public debate together televised by the BBC which I was able to view from New York via internet.
Sartorially the opposition party leaders wore ties echoing the colour of their party (Cameron Blue & Clegg Orange) whilst Gordon opted for a purple tie (blue & red!).
Early in the debate the issue of efficiency savings came up - playing to Brown's knowledge of financial issues. Unfortunately Gordon continues the bullfrog-like gasping for breath mid-sentence though powerfully referring to the 1930s as the risk of budget cuts.
Also the leaders all indicate the Ministry of Defence (MoD) will not be spared the efficiency cuts - some 6 Billion pounds. Under Blair the Gershon efficiency savings have struggled to deliver after the initial push of the Office of Government Commerce in the late 1990s. The MOD was only mentioned in the context of Gordon Brown maybe or maybe not providing rises to the defence budget.
Nick Clegg appears to come across more as a moderator "here they go again" and less as a political party leader - which might translate into positive votes on May 6th, 2010.
David Cameron looks like he has been in a spa for several days - facials, sun tanning and botox ?! Gordon Brown looks exhausted though combatative.
The second discussion revolved around taxes - the incumbent government indicated the priorities for spending - policing, education and health care. Brown was combatative focusing on class differences (conservatives - inheritance tax) "unfair & moral".
The third question focused on remuneration in the financial sector. Interestingly, the Conservatives started out wanting to increase regulation and to tax banks (a variant of the windfall taxes of the late 1990s?) and to block banks from participating in certain activities. Liberal Democrats state no cash bonuses for board level bankers. Labour push the saving of voters deposits by nationalising banks and therefore their protectors.
Bizarre follow up by David Cameron that Labour hitched the economy to the City of London, despite the pivotal role of the Thatcher Government in privatisation during the 1980s and financial services liberalisation.
NIck Clegg articulated a good argument for simple methods to improve the state of the manufacturing base and hit out at the bailout of the Royal Bank of Scotland who were involved in the Kraft:Cadbury acquisition which led to job losses in the UK.
Dear Democrat strategists, the GOP already has a clearly defined critical path to Election 2012
Dear Democrat strategists,
How long ago must the election of 2008 seem where none could stand between your candidate and the highest office in the land.
Whilst mired in a health care reform many are sceptical of, public prosecution of a leading investment bank with spurious evidence and a conflict in a place where no Great Power has claimed meaningful or lasting victory your political opponents nearer home have a clear route to making your Presidency but a single term in length.
1. MId term elections 2010: As the Washington Post reported, the GOP are targeting three key Senate seats; the seats of the President, Vice-President and Majority Leader which will be highly symbolic and take full advantage of the protest vote.
2. Keep your political support base on the boil: Sarah Palin's role in the next election might well be as a stalking horse seeking to itch to a future President's wagon or Cabinet however she is using her name recognition and charisma out on the lecture and speaking circuit. Expect some intruiging language (can she top Charlton Heston ?) in her headline address at the National Rifle Association's annual conference in North Carolina on May 14, 2010. Mitt Romney is meanwhile busy courting the traditional power-base of the Republican Party endorsing candidates for 2010 (and therefore himself for 2012?).
3. Celebrate Past Success and galvanise support: 100 years since the birth of former President and Republican icon Ronald Reagan is due in 2011. Expect events and positioning of the Party and prospective candidates plus the California celebrations will represent the close of Govenor Arnold Schwartznegger's period in office - if only the USA would relax their laws to let him run as a candidate in 2012...
4. Have a clear election platform: A 2012 GOP election platform will likely be based on the following themes;
- Taxes and roll-back of Government.
- End the commitment to Afghanistan and bring the troops home.
- Stop interfering in Wall Street - reform could be damaging for the Democrats and seen to errode American competitiveness in the global economy.
- Pick up the renewable energy baton from the Democrats and wrap together entrepreneurship and innovation messages.
- Over-turn health care reforms which are overly complex - and then leave well alone.
How long ago must the election of 2008 seem where none could stand between your candidate and the highest office in the land.
Whilst mired in a health care reform many are sceptical of, public prosecution of a leading investment bank with spurious evidence and a conflict in a place where no Great Power has claimed meaningful or lasting victory your political opponents nearer home have a clear route to making your Presidency but a single term in length.
1. MId term elections 2010: As the Washington Post reported, the GOP are targeting three key Senate seats; the seats of the President, Vice-President and Majority Leader which will be highly symbolic and take full advantage of the protest vote.
2. Keep your political support base on the boil: Sarah Palin's role in the next election might well be as a stalking horse seeking to itch to a future President's wagon or Cabinet however she is using her name recognition and charisma out on the lecture and speaking circuit. Expect some intruiging language (can she top Charlton Heston ?) in her headline address at the National Rifle Association's annual conference in North Carolina on May 14, 2010. Mitt Romney is meanwhile busy courting the traditional power-base of the Republican Party endorsing candidates for 2010 (and therefore himself for 2012?).
3. Celebrate Past Success and galvanise support: 100 years since the birth of former President and Republican icon Ronald Reagan is due in 2011. Expect events and positioning of the Party and prospective candidates plus the California celebrations will represent the close of Govenor Arnold Schwartznegger's period in office - if only the USA would relax their laws to let him run as a candidate in 2012...
4. Have a clear election platform: A 2012 GOP election platform will likely be based on the following themes;
- Taxes and roll-back of Government.
- End the commitment to Afghanistan and bring the troops home.
- Stop interfering in Wall Street - reform could be damaging for the Democrats and seen to errode American competitiveness in the global economy.
- Pick up the renewable energy baton from the Democrats and wrap together entrepreneurship and innovation messages.
- Over-turn health care reforms which are overly complex - and then leave well alone.
Wednesday 28 April 2010
UK Election: Conservatives relying on US input for Prime-Ministerial Debates
Catherine Mayer of Time Magazine wrote on April 26, 2010;
The American Connection
Referendums and recalls aren't the only things that Cameron has borrowed from the U.S. His rhetoric has a familiar ring to it. "Change vs. more of the same is the big clarion call," Cameron tells TIME. "The change we need, the change we believe in, change we can trust, change that happens — call it what you want." He has taken more than slogans from Barack Obama's 2008 campaign — the President's former White House communications director and campaign adviser Anita Dunn, for one. Dunn, together with Bill Knapp, her partner in the Washington-based consultancy Squier Knapp Dunn Communications, is helping with preparations for three potentially pivotal televised debates pitting Cameron against Brown and Nick Clegg, the Liberal Democrat leader. Cameron hopes these jousts will help him finally seal the deal with voters, many of whom are still suspicious that at heart the Tories don't really like the messy, multicultural, open and nondeferential society Britain has become since the Conservatives last held power. "People want to know two things," he says. "They want to know that things really will change, but also they want reassurance that the Conservative Party itself has changed."
And it has, to the extent that it is not surprising to see consultants associated with Obama helping the British cousins of the U.S. Republican Party. There's a huge gap now between American conservatism and the touchier-feelier variety promoted by Cameron's Conservatives. Thatcher, a hero to many on the U.S. right, laid the foundations of a long British boom that has only recently ended. But Thatcherite economic reforms came at a social cost that earned Conservatives a reputation — in the phrase of a party chairwoman — as "the nasty party." So Cameron has been at pains not to embrace Thatcher's legacy but to rid the party of it. Launching the Tory manifesto on April 13, he promised a return to an inclusive "one nation Conservatism" in place of the polarized and polarizing ideology of the Thatcher years.
Read more.
The American Connection
Referendums and recalls aren't the only things that Cameron has borrowed from the U.S. His rhetoric has a familiar ring to it. "Change vs. more of the same is the big clarion call," Cameron tells TIME. "The change we need, the change we believe in, change we can trust, change that happens — call it what you want." He has taken more than slogans from Barack Obama's 2008 campaign — the President's former White House communications director and campaign adviser Anita Dunn, for one. Dunn, together with Bill Knapp, her partner in the Washington-based consultancy Squier Knapp Dunn Communications, is helping with preparations for three potentially pivotal televised debates pitting Cameron against Brown and Nick Clegg, the Liberal Democrat leader. Cameron hopes these jousts will help him finally seal the deal with voters, many of whom are still suspicious that at heart the Tories don't really like the messy, multicultural, open and nondeferential society Britain has become since the Conservatives last held power. "People want to know two things," he says. "They want to know that things really will change, but also they want reassurance that the Conservative Party itself has changed."
And it has, to the extent that it is not surprising to see consultants associated with Obama helping the British cousins of the U.S. Republican Party. There's a huge gap now between American conservatism and the touchier-feelier variety promoted by Cameron's Conservatives. Thatcher, a hero to many on the U.S. right, laid the foundations of a long British boom that has only recently ended. But Thatcherite economic reforms came at a social cost that earned Conservatives a reputation — in the phrase of a party chairwoman — as "the nasty party." So Cameron has been at pains not to embrace Thatcher's legacy but to rid the party of it. Launching the Tory manifesto on April 13, he promised a return to an inclusive "one nation Conservatism" in place of the polarized and polarizing ideology of the Thatcher years.
Read more.
Goldman Sachs Senate testimony: Theatre - Washington style
As I previously wrote not long after the crisis broke, the Goldman inditement by the SEC is setting the stage for a political push to reform some of the worst (2009 vintage) practices.
The more interesting question is the value of the alumni network of Goldman Sachs. The A-list of Goldman people in senior government positions is quite extensive and institutions such as the consulting firms McKinsey and Arthur D. Little would pride themselves on installing former employees into positions where future business can be leveraged plus provide intelligence as to what is going on.
This would imply that either the SEC move was known to a few people and Goldman had no substantive warning or that they had zero ability to head off the legal action. Additionally the money invested in lobbying seems to have been placed with people who were asleep at the wheel.
One would expect a few heads to roll once the dust has settled.
Second, what does this crisis portend for the lifeblood of American politics - campaign financing. The banks chose to bet on Obama and made very healthy contributions to Democrat coffers in the 2008 election. As they say in New York, one would suspect that they (wall street) "are over it".
The more interesting question is the value of the alumni network of Goldman Sachs. The A-list of Goldman people in senior government positions is quite extensive and institutions such as the consulting firms McKinsey and Arthur D. Little would pride themselves on installing former employees into positions where future business can be leveraged plus provide intelligence as to what is going on.
This would imply that either the SEC move was known to a few people and Goldman had no substantive warning or that they had zero ability to head off the legal action. Additionally the money invested in lobbying seems to have been placed with people who were asleep at the wheel.
One would expect a few heads to roll once the dust has settled.
Second, what does this crisis portend for the lifeblood of American politics - campaign financing. The banks chose to bet on Obama and made very healthy contributions to Democrat coffers in the 2008 election. As they say in New York, one would suspect that they (wall street) "are over it".
Saturday 24 April 2010
UK Election: commentary on the second Prime Ministerial debate
Five different polling organisations rushed out instant polls on the winner of last night's leaders' debate on Sky News. It's very noticeable that newspapers favouring the Conservatives before hand have trumpeted Cameron as the "winner". This does seem to be very selective reading of what passes as "facts" in this case. Three out of five polls had Clegg in the lead, and the average of the five was:
Nick Clegg (Liberal Democrat) 33.4%
David Cameron (Conservative) 32.8%
Gordon Brown (Labour) 27.6%
So Cameron, the man who would be Prime Minister and who was lauded to the heavens just a few weeks ago, has managed to haul himself up from last to second, on the basis of less than a third of those responding. Which isn't very impressive.
What is very interesting is the self-selecting poll on Facebook, which presumably is somewhat skewed towards younger people. At the time of writing, over 60,000 people had responded, with the totals:
Clegg 48%
Cameron 27%
Brown 25%
In effect, voting starts next week BEFORE the final debate on BBC, as postal votes are expected to start arriving on people's doormats. In my own constituency the Liberal Democrats seem to have been fighting for those postal votes (a legacy of a previous referendum, with a high degree of take up) by blitzing voters with literature. Very little is evident from the other Parties, implying no steam or they are waiting to go fro a late push. Which might be too late if many people have voted and the recent surge in support for the Liberal Democrats is cemented.
Nick Clegg (Liberal Democrat) 33.4%
David Cameron (Conservative) 32.8%
Gordon Brown (Labour) 27.6%
So Cameron, the man who would be Prime Minister and who was lauded to the heavens just a few weeks ago, has managed to haul himself up from last to second, on the basis of less than a third of those responding. Which isn't very impressive.
What is very interesting is the self-selecting poll on Facebook, which presumably is somewhat skewed towards younger people. At the time of writing, over 60,000 people had responded, with the totals:
Clegg 48%
Cameron 27%
Brown 25%
In effect, voting starts next week BEFORE the final debate on BBC, as postal votes are expected to start arriving on people's doormats. In my own constituency the Liberal Democrats seem to have been fighting for those postal votes (a legacy of a previous referendum, with a high degree of take up) by blitzing voters with literature. Very little is evident from the other Parties, implying no steam or they are waiting to go fro a late push. Which might be too late if many people have voted and the recent surge in support for the Liberal Democrats is cemented.
Tuesday 20 April 2010
UK Election Polls 20 April, 2010
UK Election Polls 20 April, 2010
April 20, 2010
Just as the Icelandic volcano unexpectedly changed the landscape of European travel, so the first ever debate on TV between the leaders of Britain’s main political parties had a game changing impact on the prospects for the General Election now under way.
Up to that fateful 90 minutes podium to podium confrontation last week, the story of British politics had been: The people don’t want Labour and Gordon Brown again, but David Cameron’s Conservatives haven’t sealed the deal. Then Nick Clegg for the Liberal Democrats hit the screen for the first time as an equal – and the future was different.
Over the last six months, Cameron’s Conservatives had been flat lining under the 40% they need under the UK’s warped political system to make the breakthrough into an overall majority.
As the campaign started, the first 12 polls of April showed the Conservatives on 39% +/- 2%; Labour 30%+/- 2%; Liberal Democrats 19%+/- 2%, with 95% confidence. That would mean the Conservatives the biggest Party, about 10 seats short of a majority, but with everything to play for.
Then came the debate. Clegg was a palpable hit. He came over as the new man, the nice man, with policies people liked. He won the debate in a canter. His personal approval levels have soared to a net positive over negative of 78% - something not seen since Winston Churchill led the nation to victory in the Second World War.
His Party ratings have followed suit. In ten polls conducted since then, the averages have changed to Conservative 32% (down 7%); Labour 27% (down 3%) and Liberal Democrats 30% (up 11%) – all of course with the ranges and confidence of the early April poll of polls.
With these numbers, the Election outcome picture is entirely different. Not only would Cameron not be Prime Minister of right, he wouldn’t even be leading the biggest Party! The Liberal Democrats become king-makers or coalition partners, sitting on more than 100 seats. This is a level they haven’t seen since Lloyd George was the last Liberal Prime Minister after the First World War nearly a century ago.
And such is the skew in our constituencies, and the impact of the small parties like the Nationalists, Labour would have the most Members of Parliament even though it would have the smallest share of the vote of the “big three” parties. By combining with the Liberal Democrats, either the Conservatives or Labour could command an overall majority!
These are of course only opinion polls. It’s real votes in real ballot boxes that count at the end of the day 9that day being May 6th). But Clegg and his Liberal Democrats are suddenly more credible than ever nationally (despite running many of the major cities in England) and they’ve energised the Election, especially among younger voters.
There are two more debates, the next one on Thursday. Anything can happen. But at least for now, in the UK, politics is no longer boring!
April 20, 2010
Just as the Icelandic volcano unexpectedly changed the landscape of European travel, so the first ever debate on TV between the leaders of Britain’s main political parties had a game changing impact on the prospects for the General Election now under way.
Up to that fateful 90 minutes podium to podium confrontation last week, the story of British politics had been: The people don’t want Labour and Gordon Brown again, but David Cameron’s Conservatives haven’t sealed the deal. Then Nick Clegg for the Liberal Democrats hit the screen for the first time as an equal – and the future was different.
Over the last six months, Cameron’s Conservatives had been flat lining under the 40% they need under the UK’s warped political system to make the breakthrough into an overall majority.
As the campaign started, the first 12 polls of April showed the Conservatives on 39% +/- 2%; Labour 30%+/- 2%; Liberal Democrats 19%+/- 2%, with 95% confidence. That would mean the Conservatives the biggest Party, about 10 seats short of a majority, but with everything to play for.
Then came the debate. Clegg was a palpable hit. He came over as the new man, the nice man, with policies people liked. He won the debate in a canter. His personal approval levels have soared to a net positive over negative of 78% - something not seen since Winston Churchill led the nation to victory in the Second World War.
His Party ratings have followed suit. In ten polls conducted since then, the averages have changed to Conservative 32% (down 7%); Labour 27% (down 3%) and Liberal Democrats 30% (up 11%) – all of course with the ranges and confidence of the early April poll of polls.
With these numbers, the Election outcome picture is entirely different. Not only would Cameron not be Prime Minister of right, he wouldn’t even be leading the biggest Party! The Liberal Democrats become king-makers or coalition partners, sitting on more than 100 seats. This is a level they haven’t seen since Lloyd George was the last Liberal Prime Minister after the First World War nearly a century ago.
And such is the skew in our constituencies, and the impact of the small parties like the Nationalists, Labour would have the most Members of Parliament even though it would have the smallest share of the vote of the “big three” parties. By combining with the Liberal Democrats, either the Conservatives or Labour could command an overall majority!
These are of course only opinion polls. It’s real votes in real ballot boxes that count at the end of the day 9that day being May 6th). But Clegg and his Liberal Democrats are suddenly more credible than ever nationally (despite running many of the major cities in England) and they’ve energised the Election, especially among younger voters.
There are two more debates, the next one on Thursday. Anything can happen. But at least for now, in the UK, politics is no longer boring!
Monday 19 April 2010
Cui Bono: The strange case of the US regulator SEC and investment bank, Goldman Sachs
The weekend saw a rather bizarre case reported in the US press of the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) decision to prosecute the investment bank Goldman Sachs and one of its traders in the case of practises around packaging 'toxic assets' (sub-prime mortgages) and the transparency around their sale to the public.
The case is bizarre at first glance as firstly, Goldman Sachs lost $90m themselves and second that much of the case is around the involvement of John Paulson, the man who a) advised the fund on the composition of assets and b) the man who benefitted principally by shorting the fund he advised Goldman to create and c) who earned a personal paycheck of $3.5bn is not at all implicated in the scenario.
The fact that there are no images of federal agents making arrests or offices being stormed for documents implies that the case is a spurious fishing exercise at one level. Additionally the it was reported that Goldman Sachs had known for 9 months of the pending SEC action.
However by Monday morning the political strategy underpinning the choice has become far clearer. The Obama push for financial reform in an environment of blossoming financial markets creates a need to remind the body politic of the evils of unbridled capitalism (from a Democrat perspective) defining the timing of the SEC card being played by the Obama Administration, leading to five key questions;
1. Will Goldman Sachs make a stand on principal that it acted ethically or will they fold and settle quickly and quietly ?
2. Where was the influence of the Goldman alumni network with the Obama administration ? Is the influence of the network on the wane ??
3. Can Goldman Sachs win the case on behalf of itself and Wall Street ?
4. What will this case do for Democrat fundraisers going into the mid-term elections and the US elections in 2012 ? One would suspect a Republican platform along the lines of "enough punishment - lets get back to making money" will garner far more political interest and campaign funds not only from Goldman though additionally from other institutions fatigued, and fearful of another four year punishment beating.
5. Who will ultimately be the political whipping-boy for the financial crisis ? Clearly Bernie Maddoff is not a big enough fish - although he did immense damage he was not hauled in chains to Washington. One could suggest that looking backwards to the likes of Michael Milken (as a superficial level) that the person seem most to benefit from a situation becomes the real political target for action.
Witness round 1 in a multi-stage campaign.
The case is bizarre at first glance as firstly, Goldman Sachs lost $90m themselves and second that much of the case is around the involvement of John Paulson, the man who a) advised the fund on the composition of assets and b) the man who benefitted principally by shorting the fund he advised Goldman to create and c) who earned a personal paycheck of $3.5bn is not at all implicated in the scenario.
The fact that there are no images of federal agents making arrests or offices being stormed for documents implies that the case is a spurious fishing exercise at one level. Additionally the it was reported that Goldman Sachs had known for 9 months of the pending SEC action.
However by Monday morning the political strategy underpinning the choice has become far clearer. The Obama push for financial reform in an environment of blossoming financial markets creates a need to remind the body politic of the evils of unbridled capitalism (from a Democrat perspective) defining the timing of the SEC card being played by the Obama Administration, leading to five key questions;
1. Will Goldman Sachs make a stand on principal that it acted ethically or will they fold and settle quickly and quietly ?
2. Where was the influence of the Goldman alumni network with the Obama administration ? Is the influence of the network on the wane ??
3. Can Goldman Sachs win the case on behalf of itself and Wall Street ?
4. What will this case do for Democrat fundraisers going into the mid-term elections and the US elections in 2012 ? One would suspect a Republican platform along the lines of "enough punishment - lets get back to making money" will garner far more political interest and campaign funds not only from Goldman though additionally from other institutions fatigued, and fearful of another four year punishment beating.
5. Who will ultimately be the political whipping-boy for the financial crisis ? Clearly Bernie Maddoff is not a big enough fish - although he did immense damage he was not hauled in chains to Washington. One could suggest that looking backwards to the likes of Michael Milken (as a superficial level) that the person seem most to benefit from a situation becomes the real political target for action.
Witness round 1 in a multi-stage campaign.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
