
The
Liberal-Tory Government has pushed through their plan for a
cover-up of the real
Banking Scandal, by limiting it to a narrowly focussed,
Parliamentary Inquiry. That ensures as was seen at the
Select Committee meeting that the
bankers will be let off the hook. The debate in the
House of Commons showed that the
Liberal-Tories are only interested in trying to
score political points off Labour,
not with getting to the bottom of the
criminal activities of the Banks, and sections of the
Capitalist State. The Liberal-Tories have been
in office for nearly two and a half years, or nearly half the length of this Parliament. The
Liberals frequently still speak as though they were not part of the Government, when they want to
distance themselves from their actions.
Both of them whenever their is a problem
refuse to take any responsibility for it, and instead trot out the now
ridiculous mantra that
"it is all Labour's fault".

I've set out previously why we
can't accept a Parliamentary Inquiry. A look at even the
Tories on the
Select Committee shows the number of them who are
intimately connected with Banks and City Institutions. A Parliamentary Inquiry is like putting the
fox in charge of the hen house. But, yesterday also showed that much of the time of any such inquiry will be taken up by
Liberal-Tory MP's grandstanding, and trying to out compete each otehr in how much they can
launch rhetorical attacks on Labour. As pretty much
every commentator has pointed out, the
Select Committe hearing demonstrated that
MP's are simply not equipped to conduct the kind of inquiry needed.

The
Liberal-Tory cover-up, however,
might still not fly despite yesterday's vote. For one thing, the venom between the two sides is likely to mean that
getting agreement on composiiton of the Committee, on
Terms of Reference and
scope of the Inquiry may be
impossible to achieve, certainly any time soon. If
Labour does what it should, and demands that the
Terms of Reference and scope are thrown as
wide as possible, its
unlikely the Liberal-Tories will agree, because that will not serve their purposes of a cover-up, and simply
smearing Labouring. In the meantime, the
demands from the street for
bankers to be hung from lampposts is unlikely to be assuaged by the Liberal-Tories proposals for a cover up.
Labour should
organise a widespread campaign for a
Workers Inquiry to
mobilise that anger. Already, we are seeing
sections of the media, such as
Paul Mason on
Newsnight, raising the question of
why people like Diamond are
happy to be
questioned by MP's, but continually
refuse to be forensically questioned even by journalists. The
well of opinion for an
open Inquiry, and
against a cover-up, is likely to
force the
Liberal-Tories into yet
another U-Turn, like those over the
Pasty Tax and so on.

But, of course,
Labour does have
questions to answer too. There is
no reason to believe that a
Judge led Inquiry will have any
real incentive to properly
uncover the truth of the
links between the
Banks, politicians, the
State, and the
Media either. That is why we need the
TUC to organise a
Workers Inquiry into the Banks to
uncover all these links, and how they adversely affect ordinary working people. That is especially the case now the
Liberal-Tories have decided to
organise their Parliamentary cover up.

In the meantime, the
Liberals have engaged in
another of their periodic
public relations exercises to try to prove they are not the same as the
Tories. This time over
Lords Reform. The question is
why we need to
reform the Lords rather than
just abolish it! Why do we need
one group of elected or unelected
politicians, being paid
large amounts of money, just to
check up on some
other group of
politicans? That is clearly just
jobs for the boys. The proposals for an
elected Lords is for people to be elected for
15 year terms! That is like giving a politican a
job for life, which is no different than the current Lords set up. The job or
checking up on,
censuring, and
removing MP's belongs to the
electorate. Originally, the
Liberal-Tories promised to introduce a
right of recall of MP's, but that proposal seems to have
disappeared from sight. 160 years ago, the
Chartists demanded
Annual elections, so that
Governments that were failing to perform could be
thrown out. If the Liberals really want to advance the
cause of democracy they would drop their demands for the retention of the Lords, and press for the
right of recall, and for
Annual Elections.
Of course,
they won't do that. Liberals are already way over represented in the
House of Lords compared to their electoral support, and they have showed that they are
more than happy to
ditch their election promises, for example over
Tuition Fees, in order to
provide themselves with
lucrative Government jobs. Their
cringeing support for the
Tories proposals over the
Bank cover up, is just another illustration that there is
no difference between
Liberals and Tories, and both have
little interest in democracy and accountability.
1 comment:
There is a link between the proposed LIBOR-only committee and the House of Lords, namely that the committee will include peers as well as MPs.
The peers will no doubt be selected for their domain expertise (i.e. they'll largely be creatures of The City), which doesn't bode well.
On the other hand, they will be keen to show the value of such expertise as this will reinforce the case for a part-appointed second chamber.
An interesting sub-plot will be whether Nick Clegg will push for Matthew Oakeshott to be on the committee.
Post a Comment