Birds of a Feather (1)

Tory Deputy Chairman didn’t declare his son worked for Bob Diamond

Senior member of the Treasury Select Committee Michael Fallon had a lapse of memory in relation to the questions he addressed to ex-Barclays boss Bob ‘Speech impediment’ Diamond recently.

The Tory Deputy Chairman gracefully acknowledged that he worked for Libor Brokers Tullett Prebon,  and was therefore up to his neck thus fully conversant with the sector. But he failed to point out that, for the last year, his son Peter Fallon has been employed as an Investment Banker with Barclays. (Investment banking is, shall we say, Mr Diamond’s specialist subject).

This strikes The Slog as an odd oversight: keen to admit that he’d been Diamond’s client, but unwilling to reveal that his son was Diamond’s employee.

Young Peter started with Barcap in July 2011. I find it hard to imagine that, at some point in the Barclays HR recruitment process, the identity of his illustrious Dad didn’t came up. I equally find it near impossible to imagine the son not discussing the application with the father.

So we have to assume, I suppose, that Tory Deputy Chairman Michael Fallon was more than happy to tell his son to take the job. As well as being more than happy to dump on the Diamond Geezer 10 months later. 

The Conservative Party leader is, of course, Mr David Cameron, a keen supporter of the Leg Up. So presumably this is nothing more than a case of Follow My Leader.

 

28 thoughts on “Birds of a Feather (1)

  1. Although of interest in general terms I don’t I see what the point is here.

    I assume no absolute rules have been broken otherwise your content would have been more specific.

    Looking only at Mr Fallon’s easily available *publicity*, the only information about his family which is readily available is that he is married with two sons. The ages are not given but they might be of the age of maturity which leads me to ask ‘so what?’.

    Unless there is some suggestion that the son has influenced a decision made by the father and by that I mean a bit more than suggestion, akin to evidence, why should the father reveal this information.

    Which leads to the more general issue, regardless of the rules, at what point does an MP’s right to privacy become subservient to the public right to know absolutely everything.

    In the absence of evidence of wrong doing, in this case I would side with non-disclosure being reasonable.

    Evidence to the contrary would of course have an impact on that.

    • quite so, jwoo – sonny peter was probably carrying out a covert investigation of barclays on behalf of daddy, and naturally it would not have been in the public interest to blow the operation out of the water. bravo, say i, and knighthoods all round.

      • Yes indeed @ george o, but that is pure speculation and there are a number of others possibilities, so should we criticise and condemn on the basis of speculation? The result will be a rule that all Poli’s family activities would have to be made public in which case the tax payer will end up paying their salaries as well, since they couldn’t be expected to operate normally under those circumstances.

        It isn’t just fish which smells bad, so what is the answer. I don’t know but perhaps case by case analysis has merit..

    • Jwoo, I would say that as long as MP’s are paid by the public we have a right to know everything. Up to now they have proven themselves undeserving of our trust.

      And in the absence of any evidence of any wrongdoing. Their constant “if you have nothing to hide, you have nothing to fear”would seem to apply here.

      • @ Super Sid

        I see your point, particularly the second one, but I don’t believe taking it to it’s logical conclusion will serve us well.

        Time will tell, but the more demands we put on these b’stards, the more defences they will put up which will end up tieing us up but not them.

        Any empirical observation will confirm that if they can, most of them will be corrupt. If they aren’t when they ‘join up’ they will be shortly after becoming members. The problem is the *whole*, as has been said many times.

        As the Irishman is reported to have said when asked for directions,”Well sir, if I was going there, I wouldn’t be leaving from here.” It is used as a joke, but it seems the stuff of genius to me. The only way we can make meaningful change to the present system is utterly neutralise it and start again.

        Just my opinion of course.

      • @Jwoo: “The only way we can make meaningful change to the present system is utterly neutralise it and start again.
        Just my opinion of course.

        And IMHO a very sound opinion. There are organisations which evolve which become so complex, so inward looking and so detached from their intended mission, that the only real solution is to kill them off and start again with a fresh set of objectives.
        Money permitting, the new organisation would be established in parallel to the old one and responsibilities transferred across over a period, with absolutely zero certainty of old staff being offered a position in the new one.

  2. Poor advice from his father, it seems to me.

    Who in their right minds would encourage anyone to go into banking, that most reviled of industries now?

    • @ MarkyMark

      Reviled or not, they don’t seem to be suffering significantly financially. To twist the old saying “you never see a (farmer) banker on a bike. And since making money seems to be the new ‘must do’, what better occupation awaits the would be wealthy?

      • If you are running a cabal keep it in the family,why risk someone with integrity spoiling your cabal.keep the silence just makes it harder to get prove of any dishonesty
        need open scrutiny at all times,something they are very very frightened off

  3. “Ministers could be given the power to dismiss their most senior civil servants ” (hang on there @BT havent finished yet) “and bring in US style political appointees to drive through policy as part of a radical shakeup of Whitehall to be considered by the government.” Frances Maude to examine proposals wrt models in eg US, Aus & NZ.

    (the Indy today…sorry no link, hard copy).

    Farewell Sir Humphrey; welcome target-driven fixed term contract party apparatchiks. And we only have to look to the NHS to see how well targets work.

    Political momentum and accountability should be improved (see Thatcher: “is he one of us?”) but at the expense of prized impartiality.

    Savings? the signs are that numbers will rise as spads, press officers and the like become politically legitimised and join whatever nest is being feathered at the time.

    • “Savings? the signs are that numbers will rise as spads, press officers and the like become politically legitimised and join whatever nest is being feathered at the time.”

      You don’t have to be a cynic to believe all that will happen is the cost will rise. The Sir Humphrey’s won’t be easy to get rid of (how many Quangos have gone since the promise to decimate them?) and all that will result is movement and change, but extra advisors and therefore extra cost.

      Is this the Cons attempt to appear to be making good on their ‘fewer SPADS’ promise? Not impressive on the face of it.

    • @aflatoxin: ha-ha. I certainly have many serious reservations nowadays about the impartiality of our impartial Civil Service (equally about the countless public sector apparatchiks who I’m told are not strictly Civil Servants). In the old days it may have been impartial. There has been stuff written about this C/S political bias in the last 2-3 years at least (the DT published an article about it now being stuffed with like-minded ‘progressives’ by Labour during its 13yrs and they act as sort-of sleepers). And we should not forget that the ID Card proposal was reckoned to have existed for a number of years in the bottom drawer of a senior Home Office official who presented it to every new Home Secretary that walked through the door. All of them rejected it as being very ‘un-British’ until a commie/fascist prat called Blunkett appeared and liked it. He had a PM (Blair) who was also eager to find ways of improving state control of people. The rest is history.

      All of that said, I’m not exactly sure what the solution is to this problem but it certainly needs debate. I certainly dislike the Civil Service as it is now, but – since I’m on the Right (not really a Conservative) – I’m not at all sure I’d like it a whole lot better if it were stuffed with appointed Tory people, followed by appointed Labour people. It’s a double edged sword. If Tories, I think the management, efficiency and lines of accountability would be far better but there are always Tory policies I dislike. If Labour, I’d expect to see a whole new level of slush and slime being spewed out.

      • @BT a double edged sword indeed but if it removes some of the sleepers no bad thing. Please do not mention Blunkett you’ve wrecked my day.

    • civil s*dding servants? the biased b*****ds only work for themselves – sack the *ffing lot of ‘em and then sack the self-serving slimy c*nts that replace ‘em too.

      b************p

    • I have worked as an international civil servant, a US civil servant (career and political appointee) and have closely observed the Canadian, British and Australian civil services. Obviously, the Canadian and Australian ones are modelled on the Westminster system as is NZ. I have seen the decline in the quality and effectiveness of the British one over the last 40+ years. It definitely needs change to make the servants more accountable and responsive. I would not go as far as the US system but the Canadians and Australians are models to look at. (The German system is somewhat akin to the Aussie system.)

      I think we could also use talented ministers that are not members of the House of Commons but fully accountable to it. That way we could bring in talented individuals without making them waste years slooging on the back benches, a system guaranteed to make sure the ministers arw hopeless tools.

  4. I agree with @Jwoo really. I can’t see too much relevance (over and above it being an interesting snippet of gossip) that Fallon’s son has worked for Barclays since July 2011. Or are you suggesting that his son may be involved in Libor rigging? or is in some way involved in crookery?

  5. O/T
    I read this from an article on Zerohedge, under the posters name; Think for yourself.
    We’re always waiting for the crash. Waiting for what comes next. Waiting for fraudsters to get jailed. Waiting for presidents to be impeached. Waiting for international corps to get sued, dismantled. Waiting for unethical laws to be struck down. Waiting for the matrix to run out of batteries… or even waiting for the next bubble, hoping for hope, for the next breath.

    Meanwhile, that very matrix feeds off our hopelessness. It feeds off our despondency. It feeds on our fear. It even feeds off our righteous anger.

    Some think, this can’t go on. It will stop, crash and burn by itself. They keep taking part in it, even while they take on themselves the role of the loser.

    Others grab their balls in their hands, and say, I cannot let this go on. It has to change. I will fight it! They keep taking part in it, becoming resolute in coming out the winner.

    Although one looks better than the other, it isn’t. Fighting against the system is falling into the game. The game is conflict; the game is one of negative emotions. Whether you feel fear because you think you are losing, or anger because you think the system shouldn’t be allowed to win – in either case you fall into the game, you pick a side. Either you will win or you will lose.

    But the game is rigged. You can’t win. Not by remaining who you are. The matrix wields much more force than you have power – at least until you actually develop your power, in a way that the game doesn’t let you conceive. You’ll have to fight dirty. You’ll have to be treacherous; you’ll have to use violence. By the time you win, you’ll have lost; you’ll be one of them.

    The only winning move is not to play.

    Withdraw yourself from that fight; remove the conflict for your life. The world is as it is; there is suffering, there is egoism, there is violence, there is treachery, there is fear. Let it be, raise yourself over the muddy, heaving waters. Fly above the conflict, so that you may remain unaffected.

    Then you realize your liberty. You realize your sovereignty; you don’t need to be affected, and you only are if you decide to take part. Then you can start fixing yourself, making yourself whole, healthy, holy. You can work to substract yourself of the mechanicalness of it all, of the conditionnings, deep ruts dug in the individuals and the collective, over millenia and millenia. You can become a master of yourself.

    Then, once you interact with the reality around you, it won’t be as a machine, as a cog, as a prop. You won’t be living in conflict solely because the world around you is conflicted; you’ll know how to substract yourself from outside influences, how to be your own sovereign; how to be a real actor, a creator of your experience. Instead of the affected, you will be the effecting.

    Only then does the real change begin. How can you change something, how can you direct yourself, when you let who you are be defined by what is going on outside of yourself? One second you are someone; with the next changing circumstance you are somebody else.

    Find your center. Anchor yourself deeply. From that stability you can go out and explore; you can reach out.

    There is real truth in this; real revolution can only start from within.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s