Pay attention Gordon and Harriet

The G20 website lists the members of the G20 thus:

"Membership

The G-20 is made up of the finance ministers and central bank governors of 19 countries:

* Argentina
* Australia
* Brazil
* Canada
* China
* France
* Germany
* India
* Indonesia
* Italy
* Japan
* Mexico
* Russia
* Saudi Arabia
* South Africa
* South Korea
* Turkey
* United Kingdom
* United States of America

The European Union, who is represented by the rotating Council presidency and the European Central Bank, is the 20th member of the G-20."

Spain is not a member of the G20 and no matter how often you say it is, it isn't. So when will Gordon Brown apologise for misleading MPs at Wednesday's PMQs thus: "Spain is a member of the G20 now and it is in recession."

I see that Harriet Harman changed the question and answer slightly today when she claimed that

"Spain is in the G20+ - so the Prime Minister was absolutely right on that point."

I am sorry but I can find no reference to G20+ that includes Spain, perhaps Harriet Harman, Gordon Brown or a passing Labour blog refuter could enlighten me...

There is in fact a G20+ of developing nations:

"Currently, the group consists of 23 nations:

1. Argentina
2. Bolivia
3. Brazil
4. Chile
5. China
6. Cuba
7. Ecuador
8. Egypt
9. Guatemala
10. India
11. Indonesia
12. Mexico
13. Nigeria
14. Pakistan
15. Paraguay
16. Peru
17. Philippines
18. South Africa
19. Tanzania
20. Thailand
21. Uruguay
22. Venezuela
23. Zimbabwe"

No, not Spain there either...

Maybe I should like Andrew Neil on The Daily Politics show explain it for Gordon and Harriet:

Gordon just accept that you made a mistake, for once in your life admit that you were wrong and apologise for it... No, I can't see him doing that either. And as for Harriet, very 'womens lib' of you to have to come out and cover up for another 'Brownie', have you no shame?

Democracy?

I have had a bad night's sleep due to fears and ideas swirling around my head and my blogging today will be very, very light as I have a tough work day.

The idea that we live in a democracy is one that is quite hard to give up as without it, what is the point of campaigning, writing and arguing. However it has been long apparent that their are forces within this country, and without, that demand victory and power and only believe in democracy if the vote goes their way. In the UK the Labour party and its supporters took power in 1997 and all opponents were expected to just 'suck it up' and accept the will of the people. The BBC and much else of the media and population were taken in by the smarm of Blair and cowed by the veiled (or otherwise) threats of Campbell and Mandelson. Of course in the case of the BBC a Labour government was greeted by the opening of champagne bottles on election night as their hard work destroying the Conservative government had finally paid off. 12 years on and this Labour government have proved even more incompetent and destructive as any previous Labour government and the UK is in real trouble. However the BBC, as shown by Andrew Marr's contrasting interviews with Gordon Brown and David Cameron, have no doubts that the continuation of Labour government of the UK is their aim. Within the UK the army of state employees has been carefully increased by Gordon Brown, with our money. An army expected to vote Labour and ally itself with those on state benefits to ensure permanent Labour governments. The carefully set-up Quangocracy will ensure that if by any fluke a Conservative government is elected, it will have enemies embedded everywhere to slow it down, fight it at every turn and work for the return of a Labour government as soon as possible.

Meanwhile outside of the UK, the EU has concentrated on accruing as much power to itself as possible. The EU Constitution was voted down by countries allowed the vote so its powers were re-written as amendments to the existing treaties in attempt to avoid any referenda. Ireland's courts saw through this and demanded a referendum, which the NO vote won but this was not satisfactory and the EU made some dubious concessions made them vote again and won a scared YES from the Irish. It is obvious to all that the UK population would vote no if asked to support the Lisbon Treaty in a referendum so we will not be asked for our approval. The Czechs will be bullied over and over again to ratify the Treaty before there is any chance of a Conservative election victory. Once ratified whoever wins elections in the UK will be of little importance as power will be centralised in Brussels like never before. It is not beyond the realms of possibility that the return of Peter Mandelson was brought back into the Uk government to shore up Gordon Brown for just long enough for the Irish and Czechs to ratify the Lisbon Treaty.

So do we really live in a country where however we feel, however we vote; nothing changes? I fear that this might indeed be the case.Even if David Cameron's Conservatives manage to overcome the BBC's bile and win the coming general election, it is easily possible that they will find they have to answer to Tony Blair as unelected President of the EU and Gordon Brown as (unelected) head of the new more powerful G20.

Maybe Gordon Brown's prattling about a New World Order was more than just rhetoric. Maybe it is our future to live in a world where undemocratic supranational bodies have more power than elected governments.

Spot the connection

Yesterday Shriti Vadera leaves Gordon Brown's government for a post at the G20.
Yesterday I wonder if she is "joining the G20 as a preparatory move to getting Gordon Brown a job at the G20, maybe a top job."
Today I read on the BBC that: "The G20 will play a larger role in guiding the world's financial system, the US says, giving emerging economies a bigger say. "

Wheels within wheels, it doesn't matter how badly Gordon Brown screws up the UK economy, he'll still get a good job with a supranational organisation. In fact if/when David Cameron becomes PM it is quite possible that he will have to deal with Tony Blair as the President of the EU and Gordon Brown as President of the G20 - not a pleasant thought and not a state of affairs that will in any way allow David Cameron to run the UK as he and the UK electorate wishes.

Rat or pathfinder?

Many are saying that Shriti Vadera's resignation to work for the G20 is a case of a rat leaving a sinking ship. In this case I think not. Shriti Vadera has been very close to Gordon Brown for quite some time; I think it more likely that she is joining the G20 as a preparatory move to getting Gordon Brown a job at the G20, maybe a top job.

It must be nice to be in the loop!

The G20 agreement in reality

The G20 meeting in April was portrayed by the tame media in the UK and USA as a triumph for Gordon Brown and Barack Obama respectively. The figure of $5 trillion total investment was bandied around and a $1.1 trillion programme of support to restore credit, growth and jobs in the world economy was headlined. I blogged that these figures were rubbish and then pointed the way to the Tax payers Alliance website who pointed out the inherent inconsistencies in the announced figures. The BBC were happy to parrot the Gordon Brown line, after all there were local and EU elections in the offing and labour seats to try and protect.

Today, The Times reports that:

"Alistair Darling is scrambling to plug a gaping hole in the $1.1 trillion global rescue package agreed by G20 leaders in London — hailed at the time as Gordon Brown’s biggest success.

...

At the end of the G20 summit in April, the Prime Minister claimed to have built a “new consensus” among world leaders and was lauded for his role in securing the rescue deal. But a follow-up summit this month in Pittsburgh will take place against the backdrop of undelivered pledges and wrangles over how to curb bankers’ pay.

Officials admit that almost $200 billion (£123 billion) pledged in credit facilities for the International Monetary Fund has yet to materialise. Most embarrassingly, the shortfall includes $75 billion due from the European Union. The Chancellor has warned Europe to set an example and do more to meet the target of $500 billion. Britain has agreed to lend up to $15 billion to poorer economies and is willing to provide up to $11 billion more as part of an EU package. So far, none of the extra credit has been called in by the IMF, although government insiders believe that it will be needed to prop up struggling economies before long."

The BBC report the matetr somewhat differently, emphasising the role of the UK government with a piece headed "'Job not done', Darling tells G20 ". Apparently:

"The Group of 20 richest nations should not be complacent as the global economy starts to recover, UK Chancellor Alistair Darling has said."

What really happened at the G20?

The BBC are still parroting the Gordon Brown/Peter Mandelson line that

"leaders of the world's largest economies reached a deal to tackle the global financial crisis with measures worth $1.1 trillion "

. I blogged that this was not true and explained why. Now I accept that the BBC don't read every word I write but maybe they should keep an eye on the Tax Payers Alliance website, if they did then they would read that:

" * In terms of Cold Hard Cash, the actual new money pledged to the IMF amounts to $240bn, less than one-quarter of the $1.1 trillion in the G20 headline. That $240bn is coming from just three lenders - China ($40bn), Japan ($100bn), and the EU ($100bn). None is coming from the US, and the $100bn from Japan has already been announced once, in February. So real new money amounts to just $140bn, or less than 0.2% of world GDP (pre-Crash).

* Another $250bn for the IMF is supposedly coming from lenders yet to be identified - in reality it will probably have to be raised on the global capital markets.

* The IMF's final $250bn is coming in the form of additional Special Drawing Rights (SDRs). They are the ultimate funny money, basically comprising a committed credit line on which interest is charged. Moreover, the new SDRs will be allocated in proportion to so-called IMF quotas, which means that most will go to the richest countries. And guess what - the richest countries are the ones that won't actually need to draw on them.

* The $100bn of extra lending by the MDBs (multilateral development banks, like the World Bank) will be raised on the international capital markets, not directly from G20 members.

* The $250bn extra trade finance sounds like classic vapourdosh. First, how's it going to divvied up? Second, how's it going to be measured against existing plans? And third, who's going to do the monitoring and enforcement?

Overall, it seems that $1.1 trillion headline may be a teensy bit of an exaggeration. It certainly isn't the coordinated global jump-start promised by Gordo."

Maybe the BBC haven't got around to reading any opposing views to the G20 "stimulus" or maybe they are trying really hard to keep the facts from the UK population. After all there is the small matter of the upcoming local and EU elections and Labour seats to protect.

When is a trillion not a trillion?

The answer is; when it is a Gordon Brown announced trillion. The FT report that:

"When all the sums are added together, rather than $1,100bn, the new commitments appear to be below $100bn and most of those were in train without the G20 summit."

Incredible, a Gordon Brown announcement that includes reannouncements of old money and aspirations rather than concrete promises - it's like his budgets all over again.

Of course the BBC are more than happy to parrot the Gordon Brown line without any critical analysis, that is reserved for Conservative policies.

Gold

The G20 communique includes this "use the additional resources from agreed IMF gold sales". What agreed IMF gold sales? The gold price has, unsurprisingly, tanked; it is down 2.9% so far today.

So gold looks to have taken a downward turn, I see this as a temporary blip in the rising trend for gold prices. High worldwide inflation must surely mean gold increasing in value; no?

Talk of gold leads me to remind you that it was of course Gordon Brown who ordered the Bank of England to sell half the UK's national reserves after first pre-announcing the sale so as to depress the market price. I believe that the price of gold rose around 17% after that sale.

Storm the Banks

The G20 meeting is attracting just the sort of "persons", that you would expect, onto the streets of London and The International Herald Tribune reports that:

"The British police are preparing to deal with violent protests as anarchists threaten to bring chaos to the Group of 20 summit meeting in London.

All leave for police officers in the capital has been called off and businesses are being advised to cancel unnecessary meetings because protesters have vowed to target the financial district as the world leaders gather to discuss the financial crisis.

Previous world economic summit meetings and conferences have been targeted by anarchists, anti-globalization protesters and other groups. The police say they fear that the gathering April 2 in London, set against anger at the economic downturn, could provoke more violence.

Environmentalists, antiwar campaigners and protesters have already indicated that they would demonstrate April 1 as politicians and officials begin arriving in London.

A movement called "Storm the Banks" is circulating on the Internet indicating that anti-capitalist protesters are planning to focus their attention on the Bank of England during what some protesters have dubbed "Financial Fools Day.""

Some thoughts:
1. If you are a City worker I suggest 1 April and 2 April would be good days to take as holiday
2. If you are in charge of a City Bank's Disaster Recovery Plan, maybe the coming week would be a good time to check it all works
3. Don't forget that the last time the UK hosted such a gathering, the G8 in 2005, home-grown Islamic terrorist scum carried out suicide bombings on trains and a bus in London that killed 52 people and maimed and injured many more
4. Remember also that Gordon Brown's government are likely to be looking for an excuse to suspend democracy (utilising the Civil Contingency Act) and so put off the May local and June EU elections and a carefully engineered riot and terrorist atrocity really would help here


It looks as though we may have one week of sanity before London becomes an even more unpleasant place to live and work.

So to all of you who were taken in by Tony Blair's slick salesmanship in 1997, 2001 and 2005 and to all of you who believed that Gordon Brown was an economic genius rather than a weird control-freak who got lucky and still managed to screw up the Country beyond redemption - "Can you hear the drums?"