Showing posts with label Mitt Romney. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Mitt Romney. Show all posts

Friday, 14 October 2016

David Cameron's speaking gig with Bain Capital


Back in 2013 David Cameron's Tory party oversaw the sale of our NHS blood plasma supply unit to a vampire capitalist group called Bain Capital (which was founded by the 2012 Republican Presidential candidate Mitt Romney).

Fast-forward three years and Bain Capital have already handed David Cameron a lucrative speaking gig at one of their events just weeks after he quit politics after his Brexit gamble went so spectacularly wrong. Thanks to the extraordinarily lax rules covering financial rewards to former politicians it's not clear how much Cameron is going to be paid for his speaking gig, but given that that the former foreign secretary William Hague is expecting to make some £4 million per year on the speaking circuit at £50,000 - £100,000 per appearance, Cameron's speaking fees are unlikely to be less than six figures.

It's no wonder Cameron was so keen to abandon politics when there are such rich pickings to be had from the companies his government handed favours to during his time as Prime Minister.

Some other potential speaking gigs for David Cameron include:


Wonga: The revolving door between David Cameron's government and this appalling legal loan shark company has been well documented. Cameron's sack-at-will legislation (drawn up by the Wonga investor Adrian Beecroft) must have been a real boon to the company as desperate sacked workers turned to them for their rip-off 5,000%+ APR loans. Surely Beecroft and his boys at Wonga could return the favour by handing Cameron a few lucrative public speaking gigs?
Circle Health: This private operator of various NHS facilities across England was one of the major beneficiaries of Cameron's 2012 NHS privatisation by stealth bill. Circle (owned by numerous major Tory party donors) was responsible for the absolute debacle at Hinchingbrook hospital, yet they're still running other NHS facilities across the country. The least they could do for Cameron is stuff him a few hundred grand for all of the NHS services they've snapped up under his watch.
Landsdowne Partners: This hedge fund made a £36 million profit when Cameron's government sold off the Royal Mail at way below its true market value. Given their enormous profits surely they can shove a bit Cameron's way?
G4S and Serco: In 2013 these global outsourcing were caught defrauding the taxpayer out of £180 million by submitting false invoices for the electronic tagging of non-existent prisoners. Cameron's government promised to punish them by temporarily banning both companies from bidding for contracts, but secretly handed them £350 million worth of contracts when they were supposedly banned. Even worse than that, the Tories carried on paying these companies for electronic tagging services way into 2015, two years after they were caught defrauding the taxpayer. Surely these companies can find a few hundred grand apiece to stuff into Cameron's back pocket?
Caudrilla: The fortunes of Cuadrilla and other fracking companies received a massive boost when Cameron's government decided to halve the rate of corporation tax for fracking companies. The fracking boom and bust in the US is proof that fracking is only financially viable if energy prices remain high, so the champagne corks must have been popping at Cuadrilla headquarters when Cameron and Osborne signed the UK taxpayer up to an absolutely ludicrous deal with the French and Chinese states to pay them double the market rate for electricity from Hinkley Point C for an astonishing 35 year period. No doubt Cuadrilla and other fracking companies will feel a moral obligation to repay Cameron for the vast tax cut he handed them and his decision to ensure their financial viability by signing the UK taxpayer up to pay massively inflated energy prices for generations to come?
Virgin Group: Richard Branson's Virgin Group have been major beneficiaries of numerous Tory privatisation schemes. From heavily subsidised rail contracts to huge slices of NHS infrastructure Branson's business did extremely well at raking in taxpayers' cash during David Cameron's time in office. The least "beardie" could do is repay Cameron with a few six figure public speaking gigs?
Times have moved on since former Prime Ministers quietly stepped out of the limelight having achieved the pinnacle of public life. These days becoming Prime Minister or an important government minister is just a stepping stone in the process of becoming filthy rich.

After serving as Prime Minister John Major cashed in by hooking up with corporations like the Carlyle Group arms company, but Tony Blair really blazed the trail for David Cameron with his corporate consultancies with the likes of JP Morgan, his lucrative speaking gigs and his work as adviser to all kinds of brutal dictatorial regimes.

After shafting the British public with his failed Brexit gamble Cameron literally couldn't wait to get stuck into what was clearly always the endgame; making himself filthy rich gorging on corporate speaking fees and lucrative consultancy positions.


 Another Angry Voice  is a "Pay As You Feel" website. You can have access to all of my work for free, or you can choose to make a small donation to help me keep writing. The choice is entirely yours.




OR

Monday, 13 June 2016

Donald Trump's incoherent and distasteful Twitter bragging


Donald Trump's disgusting brand of hatemongering rhetoric is becoming increasingly familiar. His willingness to lie, slur, fearmonger and generally appeal to the basest human instincts in order to generate ever more publicity for himself is appalling, but clearly successful given that he's managed to convince so many millions of Republicans to endorse him as their candidate to become President of the United States.

Trump's misogyny and anti-Hispanic racism are disgusting to behold, but his anti-Muslim sentiments really are something else. The Republicans have thrown up some pretty awful Presidential candidates in the past (their last candidate was the appalling vampire capitalist Mitt Romney) but nothing to compare with Donald Trump. His proposed policy of banning Muslims from entering the United States (even if they are US citizens) is clearly a bigoted and deeply illiberal political policy. I've challenged people who support the imposition of religious purity tests at US borders to explain how such a policy is compatible with the US constitution in the past, but to no avail. People who support the bigoted collective punishment of millions of innocent people are not generally the type to think things through carefully or explain their reasoning.

Donald Trump's reaction to the Orlando nightclub massacre was appalling even by the disgustingly low standards he has already set for himself. Trump used the murder of dozens of people as an opportunity to gloat and congratulate himself on Twitter and then regurgitate his Nazi style policy of imposing religious purity tests at US borders.

After getting over the initial revulsion that somebody would use such a tragedy to pat themselves on the back and promote the kind of deeply bigoted agenda that many of the victims would surely have opposed, it's also worth noting how staggeringly incoherent Trump actually is.

The Killer Omar Mateen was a New York born US citizen, so it's absolutely clear that Donald Trump's religious purity tests at US borders would have had no influence on the situation at all (other than probably stirring up more domestic extremists full of rage at the US policy of openly discriminating against innocent Muslims).

The more we learn about Omar Mateen the more ridiculous Trump's distasteful gloating looks. Mateen was known to the US secret services for his extremist views, but he was still allowed to legally buy the kind of powerful assault rifle that he used to carry out the biggest mass killing in modern US history. Surely the answer to this problem isn't to ban peaceful law-abiding Muslims from entering the US, but to ban people from buying the kinds of gun that nobody outside the military would ever actually need to use (especially if they have been identified as potential terrorists by the FBI).


The view that this massacre had more to do with the easy availability of powerful weapons to violent and unstable people than the religious background of the murderer is supported by the evidence. Mateen's former wife has said that he was a violent and unstable person, the FBI admit that he was known to them for his extremist views, yet he was allowed to legally buy the weapons he used to carry out the massacre. Additionally it has been claimed by people who knew him that Mateen barely practiced Islam at all.

The main issue isn't that Mateen is of Islamic origin, it's that a violent and emotionally unstable person who had been investigated by the FBI for his extremist views was allowed to legally purchase the weapons he used to massacre dozens of people.

The trouble for Trump is obvious. He counts an awful lot of extreme-right gun nuts amongst his supporters, so any attempt to clamp down on the availability of powerful assault weapons to violent and emotionally unstable people with extremist views would surely cost him votes, so instead of even admit what the actual problem is, he's decided to bypass it completely by using the tragedy as an excuse to indulge in a spot of bigotry and distasteful self-congratulation.

It's bad enough that Trump opportunistically used this tragedy to wheel out his bigoted and unconstitutional policy of imposing religious purity tests at US borders, but slapping himself on the back about how right he is when his Nazi style border policy would have had no effect at all on the massacre just goes to show how fundamentally incoherent his bigoted policies actually are.


 Another Angry Voice  is a "Pay As You Feel" website. You can have access to all of my work for free, or you can choose to make a small donation to help me keep writing. The choice is entirely yours.




OR


Thursday, 18 July 2013

Tories sell NHS blood supply to vampire capitalists

On July 18th 2013 another part of the NHS was flogged off to the private sector with barely a whisper from the mainstream press. The lucky recipient of Plasma Resources UK was Bain Capital, a gigantic US based private equity fund that should be familiar to anyone that paid attention to the US presidential election in 2012.

The Republican candidate Mitt Romney was repeatedly slammed for his involvement in Bain Capital, because of their appalling record of hostile takeovers, leveraged buyouts (borrowing vast sums in order to buy a company, then lumbering the company itself with the debt used to fund their own buyout), asset stripping, tax-dodging and exportation of American jobs to China.

Plasma Resources UK is responsible for the vital supply of blood plasma to the NHS and Bain Capital have now inserted themselves into the "blood market" and will use these blood donations in order to turn a profit for themselves. I'm fairly sure you don't have to be as left-wing as me to be appalled at the idea of a ruthless US based financial behemoth cashing in on the supply of blood products at the taxpayers' expense.

One of the most concerning things about the sale is that several reputable medical companies and one specialist blood supplies company were overlooked in favour of handing the contract to this unaccountable private equity group with an appalling reputation. Another extremely concerning element of the privatisation is that it was sold for just £90 million upfront (that's only 80% of the PRUK annual turnover). The few press outlets that bothered to report the sale stated £200 or £230 million, however these future payments are conditional on the profitability of the business. It's hardly beyond the realms of imagination to think that a pack of vampire capitalists like Bain Capital might be able to financially engineer huge paper losses, so that they never have to stump up the rest of the cash is it?

There was absolutely nothing in the Tory party manifesto about selling off this vital component of the NHS blood supply. In fact, David Cameron was still lying in May 2011 when he said "Let me be clear – there will be no privatisation, there will be no cherry-picking from private providers" (link to video).

The worst thing about this sale is not that it has happened, nor that Cameron lied. It is known to us all that Tories flog off the national silver and Cameron is a habitual liar. The worst thing is the craven complicity of the mainstream media.

The BBC failed to mention the sale at all, instead focusing on the usual distractionary flim-flam. They didn't bother to hold Cameron or the Tories to account because they didn't even bother to mention the completion of this privatisation at all. The right-wing Telegraph ran a financial piece, which was reasonably balanced, in that it offered very little overt praise and absolutely no criticism of the deal. The only negative coverage of this scandalous privatisation appeared on the websites of the Guardian and the Independent, where David Owen (a former health minister) was quoted as saying:
"It's hard to conceive of a worse outcome for a sale of this particularly sensitive national health asset than a private equity company with none of the safeguards in terms of governance of a publicly quoted company and being answerable to shareholders ... Is there no limit to what and how this coalition government will privatise?"
The story of this reckless privatisation has been completely ignored by TV news, and barely reported in the mainstream press. In my view this media silence must be considered as complicity. The government knows that the majority of the public would have grave concerns about a vital component of the NHS being sold off to a foreign company with a famous reputation as a "job destroyer". The Tories know it's bound to be unpopular, so it is of massive convenience to them that the BBC and the right-wing press have remained so silent on the issue. As far as the Tories are concerned, the fewer people that even know about it the better.

So it's been left up to a couple of low-circulation broadsheets and a few independent bloggers like myself and Éoin Clarke, to speak out against this reckless fire sale of a key component of the NHS.

*Note this article was amended to remove the mistaken assertion that blood plasma supplies come from charitable donations. All plasma supplies come from US donors, who are paid $20 - $25 per donation. The reason that British blood is not used to create plasma products is the theoretical risk of CJD (human "mad cow disease") contamination. Boycotting the donation of blood in response to this story is not advised. Such actions would only undermine the already hard-pressed UK blood donation service, and would do nothing at all to diminish the profitability of the Bain Capital blood plasma business.


 Another Angry Voice  is a "Pay As You Feel" website. You can have access to all of my work for free, or you can choose to make a small donation to help me keep writing. The choice is entirely yours.




OR

n>

Sunday, 4 November 2012

A letter to American voters

Dear American voter,

I'm English and I'm going to share my opinion on American politics. I know how much you are going to appreciate it; after all us Brits are the true experts in sham "democracy". Our "democracy" is even more crude and unrepresentative than yours.

Our "democracy" is so unrepresentative and anti-democratic, in England it is the unwritten law that "democracy" must be written in inverted commas. Our upper house is like your Senate but totally unelected. Can you believe that? How would you feel about an unelected senate?

In the past. Lords of the manor simply inherited their seats in the upper house by virtue of being the sons of their wealthy landowner fathers, hence the name; House of Lords. Nowadays nearly everyone that sits in that undemocratic place is a direct appointee of the executive. 11 UK Prime Ministers between them have created over 1,000 peerages (who remain in the House of Lords for the rest of their lives, whilst it takes around 35-40 million voting citizens to elect just 650 members of the House of Commons on four to five year terms.

Even worse than the farcically anti-democratic house of Lords, is the fact that the UK has an unelected head of state called the Queen. Not only is she the head of the government, she is also the head of the Church of England. In comparison, at least the US has a theoretical "separation of church and state".

Worst of all, Britain doesn't even have a written constitution like the United States, our politicians can just make it up as they go along.

If you ever find yourself worrying that American democracy is nothing bust a sham based on an illusion of choice, just thank God you're not British.

Anyway, back to the point, which is to express my views on American politics. I can just imagine how these opinions from an Englishman would go down so darned well with an American audience.

The two main candidates in your election are obvious corporate shills. Anyone that doesn't accept this as a fact, doesn't know the first thing about American so-called democracy. We are talking about people so daft that they don't even understand the vastness of corporate political donations, the immense manpower of corporate lobbying or the actual composition of the two main parties. People like this should not be allowed to vote. However, this kind of simple-minded reactionary cretin seems to make up a hefty proportion of the US electorate, so disenfranchising them would be out of the question. The only solution would seem to be to give them a "distraction party" to vote for. A party led by clown like morons that quite obviously lack the mental faculties to run the most powerful nation on Earth, something like the British Official Monster Raving Loony Party. The only danger of course, is that the size of the credulous idiot demographic is severely underestimated and the American public end up electing some kind of deranged chimp in a suit!

Mitt Romney - The liar


Mitt Romney is is exactly the same kind of vacuous, dishonest, pathologically self-serving, intellectual-lightweight as Britain's David Cameron. Just look at the socio-economic chaos Cameron and his bunch of toffs are creating in the UK as a foretaste of what a Romney Presidency would be like.

Romney is such a dishonest, flip-flopping, self-serving, intellectual lightweight he makes "Tricky Dicky" Richard Nixon look like a man of towering integrity; he makes Ronald Reagan look like a man of towering intellect; and he makes George Bush II look like a man of extreme competence.

Romney will say absolutely anything if he thinks it serves his own self-interest. If he's talking to a crowd of extremely wealthy Republicans, he'll promise to cut taxes for the wealthy and slash public services, if he's talking to an audience of ordinary Americans, he'll promise not to cut taxes for the wealthy and to protect jobs and services. He is quite clearly a man of remarkable dishonesty and duplicity. One hopes that the American public are able to see his glaring lack of integrity. I mean he's "flip-flopped" so many times it is impossible to actually imagine what he would actually get up to if handed supreme power, except of course it would be some kind of evil money making scam, such as the activities he got up to at Bain Capital.

The fact that a transparent liar like Mitt Romney has managed to get himself this close to supreme power is a rude indictment of the state of American democracy.

Barack Obama - The dreambreaker

Obama swept to power during one of the great (if not the greatest) American financial crises, he won the Presidency on a mandate of "change"
and "Obama-mania". But he immediately appointed dozens of the very people who caused the economic meltdown, or did absolutely nothing to prevent it (Tim Geithner, Larry Summers, Ben Bernanke, Gary Gensler, Mary Shapiro and many others)  into all the top economic and many of the top political positions within his administration. Obama's coziness with the banks has been one of the hugely disappointing things about his Presidency. It doesn't matter how conservative or liberal you are, corruption is surely something that the President should attempt to stamp out, instead of giving a free-pass to everyone involved in the economic crisis (except Bernie Madoff).

Another major disappointment has been Obama's continuation of costly interventionist US military policy. American wars have cost the US economy $ trillions it can't afford and cemented the impression that America is a land of cruel oppressive imperialists. Instead of being the nation that reluctantly but heroically rescued Europe in Two World Wars, America has transformed itself into the global warmonger in chief. The Obama administration has done absolutely nothing to counter the common impression that the US is the global bully-in-chief.

It does seem that Obama is miles ahead of Romney on social policy; I mean he has said that gays should have the right to marry and he doesn't seem like the kind of guy that would force women to carry their rape babies. Despite this slightly more socially progressive stance, Obama still signed the grotesquely anti-constitutional NDAA, which revokes even more constitutional rights than Bush destroyed with the so-called Patriot Act.

Obama is clearly just playing the social progressive card to hoover up the votes of people that are terrified that Romney is so dishonest that they can only guess at how malicious his social policies might actually be, whatever is most profitable to him and his associates one would imagine.

Gary Johnson - The race to the bottom guy

Gary Johnson is the latest fundamentalist libertarian trying to win the Presidency. His social and foreign policies are actually way to the left of Obama and his economic policies are way to the right of Mitt Romney.

On social policy Johnson is a classic liberal, he would repeal the Patriot Act and the NDAA, he would end the war on drugs, fully legalise marijuana and he believes that gay marriage is a constitutionally guaranteed right, not something that should be left up to the individual states to decide for themselves.

On foreign policy Johnson is a non-interventionist. He would remove US troops from Afghanistan, oppose any attempts to launch yet another multi-trillion war to "liberate" Iran's oilfields and he would attempt to reduce the enormous burden on the US taxpayer of maintaining countless military bases all over the world.

On economic policy he is a fundamentalist anti-tax libertarian, intent on turning the US into a vast tax-haven by completely abolishing corporation tax and income tax. These policies would trigger a destructive race-to-the-bottom in "main street" America and the rest of the world alike. Johnson's economic policies would trigger the corporate endgame, with all countries suddenly slashing corporation taxes, labour rights and business regulations in order to incentivize corporate interests to remain in their countries. Corporate interests would increase their already disproportionate share of the wealth, workers would get poorer and the environment would be annihilated. Such a race to the bottom would be hugely detrimental to everyone but the corporate elite and their shills. A strategy that would prolong the American empire at the cost a creating vast social and economic instability, in "main street" America and across the World.

Absurdly the US mainstream press describe Johnson's policy of marijuana legalisation, not his loopy economic policies as his "most controversial". How is it possible for anyone to accept the mainstream media narrative that Johnson's plan to stop locking up tens of thousands of people for nothing more than inhaling the fumes of a virtually harmless herb is more controversial than his plan to completely abolish corporation tax and turn the entire US economy into the largest tax-haven in the World?

Jill Stein - The lost cause

Jill Stein is the Green party candidate. There is not much point in talking about her; the Green Party's impressive list of policies; the fact that they are endorsed by America's greatest living intellectual; or the fact that unlike their political rivals, they refuse to take corporate donations.

The American corporate media has smashed the green movement with more success than green-demonisation campaigns in any other country, which is sad, because the origins of the green political movement can be traced back to the protest movements of the 1970s.


The green movement is making headway in many of the World's richest and most powerful nations, Germany and Japan are leading the way, China have started talking up their green credentials and even oil rich Saudi Arabia have set a policy of greenification before their oil runs out.

The United States is a country where more people believe that the Earth was hand crafted by God on a busy week just a few thousand years ago than believe in the possibility that environmental pollution could be causing global warming. What makes this so absurd is that American business and foreign policy is absolutely dominated by oil. If Christian God really did make the world, and all the oil reserves just a few thousand years ago, one wonders why on Earth he decided to put such huge oil reserves in non-Christian countries like Saudi Arabia, Iraq and Iran.

Rosanne Barr - The loudmouth

To non-Americans, Rosanne Barr is a typical American citizen, she is brash and opinionated, she is a self-made woman with a cruel sense of humour, but beneath it all she has a good honest heart. Rosanne burst into the American consciousness by deliberately mutilating the last two lines of the national anthem at a baseball game back in 1990. She then cemented her place as an American celebrity with her long-running sitcom about American working-class life "Rosanne".

She tried to get the nomination for the Green party, but when she failed she quickly secured the nomination of the Peace and Freedom party instead.

Her name won't even appear on the ballot paper in many states, but she is certainly worth a mention because she is the kind of working-class liberal feminist candidate that would absolutely infuriate the reactionary Republican right. But as a self-made individual she should rightly be considered an American working-class hero.

The other no-hopers

Just like the vast majority of American voters, I don't know enough about the other no-hopers like Rocky Anderson and Virgil Goode to hold any valid opinion about them, except the certainty that they have as much chance of making it to the White House as Mozambique has of overcoming the United States to become the most powerful economy on Earth in the next couple of days.

Conclusion

As an Englishman it is clearly not my place to tell you how to vote. However, I believe I have every right to express my opinion on who I would vote for if I was an American citizen.

Firstly, whatever the circumstances, I'd vote against Mitt Romney. Letting a duplicitous, manipulative, self-interested and amoral cretin like that into the White House would be a disaster for the vast majority of Americans, a disaster for the American economy and a disaster for the World. If I was a resident of one of the swing states that actually gets to determine the US Presidency I'd have to hold my nose and vote for Barack Obama. 

If I lived in one of the majority of states that are traditionally blue or red, where it doesn't really matter who you vote for; I'd cast my vote for one of the other candidates as a protest vote, probably Rosanne, simply because voting for Rosanne Barr as President would have seemed absolutely unimaginable back in the 1990s.


Whichever way I cast my hypothetical vote, one of the two corporate backed candidates is going to win. I find myself hoping that Obama wins, simply becuase the other guy is pretty much evil personified. But then, the lesser of two evils is still evil, right?

All the best my friend, and good luck whatever the outcome.


Thomas G. Clark (Another Angry Voice)