The Ombudsmans61percent Campaign - www.blogger.com
To the Business Secretary:
For Clarity - Attempt 416.
416) Nadhim Zahawi And Tory Regulation.
Dear Mr Javid,
Did you stumble across Nadhim Zahawi's article in the Guardian -"Labour Bungled City Regulation. Here's How The Tories Are Putting It Right?" (www.guardian.commentisfree)
It's a year on and the article is revealing for the taken-for-granted assumptions it rests upon, what it carefully omitted to say and its failure to live up to what it advocated. It promised much but delivered very little - which is very much in keeping with Ombudsman Services' approach to what they call, "civil justice."
It seems inevitable that people like Nadhim Zahawi will make a career out of promising much but delivering very little which is also very much in keeping with the executives at Ombudsman Services.
He began with,
"we needed a system that protects savers and the taxpayer without undermining the free markets on which Britain's prosperity depends."
But what are "free" markets? What are they free to do? Did Santa bring them or as is the case with Scientology, apparently, did they come from outer space?
There are similarities - both are belief systems. Both take some explaining. Both are highly exploitative.
What we do know is that those "free" markets will only tolerate so much light-touch regulation before they start holding the country to ransom with their threats of picking up the level playing field and transporting it to a place where no one gives a second thought to regulation. It is the ultimate threat to a nation's prosperity and Trident will be no deterrent. Those who have captured the markets decide upon the rules - politicians like Nadhim Zahawi are there to do their bidding.
Nadhim Zahawi doesn't define his categories. Is that because to do so is too difficult or that to do so would undermine his own case? One which seems to be based solely on prejudice and the need to score political points. He states,
"Brown and Balls failed because they didn't understand free markets."
It's "Brown and Balls" is it - so we'll call "Zahawi" Zahawi from now on then. Whether they failed because, "they didn't understand the markets" is a moot point but Zahawi still hasn't told anyone what a free market is.
It does, however seem to be to be a deeply held conviction - like the existence of the tooth fairy, little green men or our personal favourite: leprechauns. We once spotted eighteen driving from Limerick to Monks in Ballyvaughan. (for Mary, Michael and Bertie - weren't those happier days - steve)
Zahawi, a true believer believes,
"We on the other hand must never tire of making the case that it is supporters of capitalism that are best placed to make it work."
We suppose much in the same way as drug barons are best placed to make their expanding sector of free market capitalism work - with its light-touch regulatory framework. These are also very aspirational people indeed, no doubt with property portfolios to include central London. Westminster perhaps - with property adjacent to the Houses of Parliament. But we don't really know because the market isn't adequately regulated.
In Zahawi's scheme of things you are either a "supporter of capitalism" and thus, "best placed to make it work" or you are not. There is no place for a critical analysis of the true faith and the possible revelation that those best placed to make it work make it work for themselves to the detriment of the rest of us.
It was the reckless loans to people who couldn't afford them that caused the crash. History appears to be repeating itself and what is your government doing Zahawi? It's handing out bailouts to entice buyers into the property market.
But there were no bailouts for the steel workers.
As Dame Janet at Ombudsman Services has correctly pointed out - asserting your commitment to quality doesn't necessarily mean you've delivered that quality and this is how Zahawi would seem to make his case - by a series of unsubstantiated assertions.
Hugh Gravelle and Ray Rees offer a more realistic account of what a market is,
"A market is an institution in which individuals or firms exchange not just commodities (or services) but the rights to use them in particular ways for particular amounts of time. Markets are institutions which organise the exchange of control over commodities (and services) where the nature of the control is defined by property rights attached to the commodities (or services)." (From - Microeconomics)
What is important to the Ombudsmans61percent Campaign is the market in surveying and private redress.
Joseph Stiglitz points out that,
"agents in the market can gain market power, allowing them to block other mutually beneficial firms from trade from occurring. This can lead to imperfect competition - ie monopolies."
and,
"An issue for analysis is whether a situation of market power is likely to persist if unaddressed by policy."
(Joseph Stiglitz)
What we are campaigning for is a public inquiry into how its become in any way acceptable for government policy - Zahawi's supporters of capitalism, those best placed to make capitalism work - to have deliberately developed a monopoly in private "civil justice" and where the maladministration of that "civil justice" is being, in any meaningful way, "civil justice."
Zahawi's messianic vision is that,
"This is about moving from the failed approach of complex prescriptive rules to one based on judgement."
So, complex prescriptive rules have, in Zahawi's judgement failed and are to be replaced by, "judgement." Judgement that somehow miraculously avoids any relationship to rules of logic or organised thinking.
Surely, if the rules are too complex for the geniuses running capitalism make them simpler. Or get more intelligent capitalists to run the show.
All of which is a bit like how the ombudsman at Ombudsman Services arrived her decisions - in an illogical manner. There were, apparently, no rules or regulations to guide her.
He goes on,
"Unlike an ever growing rule book this builds discretion into the system giving the regulators the flexibility they need to respond to ever changing economic circumstances."
So, alongside, "judgement" we are to have, "discretion." According to Zahawi, regulators will obviously need to be supporters of free market capitalism but they are also the ones best placed to make it work because they have judgement and discretion.
We don't quite know how to break it to him but it just doesn't work and we know it doesn't work thanks to Consumer Focus and what they said about the market in surveying. According to Consumer Focus, those best placed to make it work have ballsed it up and covered themselves in the brown stuff. They valiantly attempted to warn anyone who might be listening that,
"Sometimes an entire market has developed practices that are not working in the customer's interests. The market in regulating surveyors and estate agents is a case in point. We believe this problem has its origins in the RICS apparent inability to adequately regulate its members or regulated firms."
Zahawi, what do you say to that?
The supporters of free market capitalism, those best placed to make it work are the REGULATORS of this market, they monopolise it and are creating another one in private redress which they also REGULATE and their judgement has discretely led them to hide any evidence of their performance in the market they have rigged so successfully. They have been able to achieve this monopolistic dominance thanks to their ability to politically influence those with a blind faith in free market capitalism - politicians such as yourself.
You say,
"It is under a conservative government that the most unethical firms will be driven out of business."
The evidence - a commodity that's becoming scarcer by the day - does not support that statement and in the rigged market in surveying this is simply not true. Here, inadequately regulated surveyors are gleefully lining up ever increasing numbers of dissatisfied clients and packing them off to their ombudsman whose questionable judgement discretely finishes them off - job done.
Those controlling the market in surveying and private redress have perfected the methods of exploiting it. It isn't a criminal conspiracy simply because those operating it have (not surprisingly) chosen not to pass any laws making it so. This is Zahawian "judgement" and "discretion" in action.
People are being driven by those politicians, civil servants and executives of the free market capitalist persuasion into attempting the impossible - the purchase and keeping of an unaffordable home - because there are no longer any viable alternatives. Buy or pay Rachman rents for the rest of your days.
Not to seek to purchase a home you cannot afford is seen as being, "unaspirational."
The crisis in the totally rigged property market is down to politicians "who know how free market capitalism works" controlling the number of homes being built. This could go on forever with the blame for the crisis being attributed to those who lack the aspiration to own what they could never afford.
We know that,
"Much of the increase in wealth stemmed from an increase in the value of real estate....the rise in value can represent competition among the rich for potential goods... a house on the beach." (Joseph Stiglitz)
The rich - whose acquisition of wealth is never questioned - simply buy more and more property thus making it less and less affordable to those whose income is always under scrutiny. The property market has become a shady place for shady people.
Joseph Stiglitz said,
"Markets, of course, do not exist in a vacuum. There have to be rules to the game and these are established through political processes." (www8.jsb.columbia.edu/chazzan)
The UK taxpayer, in funding Zahawi's political career in politics, is paying to perpetuate a crisis in housing brought about by a coalition of vested interest who, as supporters of rigged market capitalism and who know how it works, have seized control of the property market and exploit it for all it is worth.
We are told by Zahawi,
"However competent the regulators, people are flawed and regulation will sometimes fail. That's why leadership and culture are so important."
Zahawi, there is no leadership. The culture is a one rule culture: do whatever you want, don't get caught but if you do Ombudsman Services will bail you out.
Q. Mr Javid, when RICS the regulator regulates complaints brought against its Members and (Un)Regulated Firms and then determines what are satisfactory resolutions to those complaints, isn't that an example of a market operating in a vacuum where there are no rules to the game because political processes have rigged it that way?
The Ombudsmans61percent Campaign is seeking;
- answers from Vince Cable.
- answers from Francis Maude.
- answers from Nick Clegg.
- answers from Mark Prisk.
- answers from Jo Swinsom.
- answers from Sajid Javid.
- a public inquiry into the workings of Ombudsman Services:Property (a company formerly trading as the Surveyors Ombudsman Service until undergoing rebranding) and the role of The RICS.
- compensation for the victims of the ombudsman's illogical Final Decisions.
- compensation for the victims of the executive's maladministration.
- the setting up of a truly "fair" and "independent" redress scheme free from RICS' malign influence.
Comment is free. Please share your story or information.
Thanks,
Steve Gilbert - The Ombudsmans61percent Campaign.
No comments:
Post a Comment